GERARD HENDERSON’S MEDIA WATCH DOG

ISSUE – NO. 761

6 February 2026

* * * *

* * * *

 

THE LATEST

  • Sarah Ferguson’s Trump Derangement Syndrome rejected by Germany’s Foreign Minister

Did anyone catch Sarah Ferguson interviewing the German foreign minister Johann Wadephul on ABC TV’s 7.30? The date was Thursday 4 February.

Comrade Ferguson, whose expensive Russia/Trump three-part program of recent memory on ABC TV’s 4 Corners proved to be hopelessly wrong, was in full Trump Derangement Syndrome mode. But the German foreign minister was not in agreement. As the following exchange demonstrates:

Sarah Ferguson:   Let me put that question in a different way to you. Donald Trump is the world leader at the moment who is disrupting geopolitics and trade. Is China the more reliable partner of the two?

Johann Wadephul:  Of course not. China is, of course, for Germany and for Europe a partner. It is a competitor. But it is also a systemic rival who puts in question the international rules-based order. You can only ask some of the neighbours from China in the South China Sea. So they are very clear who is the real challenge for them. And America and the United States, they are still a democracy. They still have three branches [of government]. The rule of law is important there, and that makes a very big difference to China. So we are not in equal distance to the United States and China, we are still in the camp of the United States.

Sarah Ferguson:  Now, just to come back to Australia..

This was not the only time that Johann Wadephul dismissed Comrade Ferguson’s questions born of Trump Derangement Syndrome. Unlike the ABC 7.30 presenter, Germany’s Foreign Minister understands the difference between the United States and both China and Russia. Also, he does not suffer from Trump Derangement Syndrome.

  • Margot Saville in leftist anti-conservative rant in Sydney Morning Herald

It’s not so long ago that the Sydney Morning Herald draped itself in a four page cover which stated “RESPECT”. Moreover, each day its front page carries the message “Independent. Always.” [I just love the full-stops. – MWD Editor.]

On Friday 6 February, the SMH ran a piece by its deputy opinion editor on its Opinion Page. Well it helps to get published on the SMH’s Opinion Page if you are sort of in control.

Step forward Margot Saville the SMH’s deputy opinion editor whose SMH article was published on 6 February titled “About to defect to One Nation? Look for the signs”.

Here’s how Comrade Saville’s sneering piece commenced:

Parliament has resumed and Canberra is trying to work out which members of the National Party will defect to One Nation. If you are a sitting Nationals MP and you’re planning to eat lunch from Pauline Hanson’s sandwich press, what should you do? We’re here to help.

Immigration, net zero and guns – the current fight between the Nationals and One Nation is the finest example of the narcissism of small differences since Trotsky and Stalin. However, due to preferential voting, none of them will come near the government benches for years. In the words of Henry Kissinger, the politics of this are so vicious because the stakes are so low.

Ellie’s (male) co-owner is not clear whether the Trotsky/Stalin reference is an attempt at humour. If so, the former would not have got it since he was expelled from the Soviet Union and murdered at Stalin’s direction.

After this apparent attempt at humour Comrade Saville continued:

For some people (socialists!), choosing One Nation over the Nationals is like opting for cholera over typhoid. Certainly, notwithstanding recent opinion polls, fewer and fewer voters have actually turned their minds to this dilemma over the past decade, preferring to vote for that nice Ascham school captain with the curly hair.

The leftist mocking did not stop. Comrade Saville went on a left-wing rant against One Nation and the Nationals, Sky News, private schools (especially Sydney’s Riverview) and more besides. Now Gerard Henderson is not a One Nation follower. But currently One Nation seems to have the support of a quarter of Australian voters. Moreover, Comrade Saville seems to believe that all One Nation supporters are wealthy, private school-educated types. She needs to get out more. One Nation’s core support comes from rural and regional Australia which are significantly less prosperous than the major cities.

But there’s another point. What chance would a political conservative pensioner have in getting published on the SMH’s Opinion Page with Margo Saville as deputy opinion editor? The Sydney Morning Herald. Leftist. Always.

  • Sally Sara on RN Breakfast gives debate-free run to Chris Sidoti who wants Israel’s President Herzog arrested by Australian Federal Police

On Thursday 5 February, ABC Radio was obsessed with comments made by Australian lawyer Chris Sidoti calling for the arrest by Australian Federal Police of Israel’s president Isaac Herzog who will arrive in Australia on Sunday – having been invited by the Governor-General Sam Mostyn AC following a request by Australian prime minister Anthony Albanese.

Here’s his first (soft) question from Sally Sara on ABC Radio National Breakfast to Sidoti, Commissioner on the UN Independent Commission of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory:

Sally Sara: Why do you think the Israeli President Isaac Herzog should be arrested when he arrives in Australia?

Chris Sidoti: For things that he has said personally. Our commission prepared a report and released it in September last year, in which it looked at the question of genocide. One of the issues considered was incitement to genocide, a crime in itself, and we came to the conclusion based on a statement made by President Herzog that he had incited genocide….This is something that is about him, personally, this issue, and that’s why I consider that he should be arrested and investigated, and if the evidence is there to the satisfaction of prosecution authorities, he should be prosecuted.

Now Sidoti is a vehement critic of Israel as are the other members of the UN Committee. It is of no particular interest to hear what Sidoti has to say about President Herzog and he has no authority with respect to the Australian Federal Police. Yet Sidoti’s comments dominated the whole program and were raised in Sara’s interviews with Penny Wong and Julian Leeser. However, no supporter of Israel was asked on to the program to contest Sidoti’s views in a debate. This is yet another example of the ABC’s lack of viewpoint diversity.

Moreover, it would seem that Sally Sara did not listen to Sidoti – so enthralled she appeared to be with his presence. How else to explain this exchange early in the interview? Let’s go to the transcript:

Sally Sara: We’ll listen to a sound bite from President Herzog shortly. Under the law, how could the Israeli president be arrested? Who could do that and on what specific grounds here in Australia?

Chris Sidoti: Well, the crime of incitement to genocide is a crime under Australian law. It’s also a crime under international law. The complication in this case is that Herzog is the Head of State. Traditionally, in international law, there is immunity granted to a head of state when visiting another country, but there is increasing academic and juristic comment that that does not apply to what’s called an atrocity crime. So that is crimes against humanity, war crimes or genocide. So the law is not clear cut, but there is certainly a very strong opinion these days in international law that head of state immunity, such as that that Herzog enjoys, does not apply to these particular crimes. And the initiative belongs with the Australian Federal Police.

Sally Sara: So, are they the body or the officers that, in your view, would have legal grounds to attempt arrest?

Chris Sidoti: Yes.

Turn it up. Comrade Sidoti conceded that the law with respect to (alleged) genocide by a head of state “is not clear cut”. But Sidoti wants President Herzog put in the slammer whatever the law. How irresponsible can a human rights lawyer get? And here’s another question: Can You Bear It?

  • Sally Sara and Hamish Macdonald hopelessly wrong about the (alleged) link between Christianity and Nazism

In the wake of the attack by alleged radical Islamists on the Jewish community at Bondi Beach on 14 December 2025, some leading ABC journalists have sought to find a link between radical Islam and Christianity.

Here’s a question which ABC Radio National presenter Sally Sara put to Liberal Party Senator Andrew Bragg on 28 January:

Sally Sara: As we’ve been doing this interview, we’re getting some text messages through on our text line. One says, “Hi, Sally, in relation to Andrew Bragg’s comments about the whole Muslim community taking responsibility for Bondi. If we could take this logic further, does it mean the Christian community should take responsibility for Nazi hate speech?”. What do you think of that message?

And here’s a question which ABC Radio 702 presenter Hamish Macdonald put to Senator Bragg on 29 January:

Hamish Macdonald: But when we look at the language used by neo-Nazi groups, for example, they rely on Christian tradition or thought. They rely on the colour of their skin. Are you saying that all of us that might identify as Christian or white should take responsibility for the actions of the Neo-Nazis?

What a load of absolute tosh. Adolf Hitler’s Nazi regime was secular – it was not a Christian movement. Indeed, Pope Pius XI in his 1937 encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge (Concerning the Condition of the Catholic Church in Germany) condemned Nazism. During the Nazi dictatorship, two of the most outspoken opponents of the Nazi regime were Christians. Namely, Lutheran pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer (who was executed by the Nazi regime in April 1945) and Clemens von Galen, the Catholic Bishop of Munster (who survived the war in Sachsenhausen Concentration Camp and died in 1946).

ABC presenters like Sally Sara and Hamish Macdonald are clearly ignorant about the Nazi regime which neo-Nazis choose to follow. Yet they talk about Germany between 1933 and 1946 with authority. And they seem to believe that all Christians are white. Can You Bear It?

  • Scott Morrison’s Israel speech fanged on Insiders without an alternative view being heard

ABC TV Insiders resumed on Monday 2 February. Towards the end of the program, presenter David (“Please call me Speersy”) Speers raised the issue of Scott Morrison’s recent speech in Israel concerning radical Islam. The panel comprised Waleed Aly (Nine columnist whose main job appears to be as a Monash University academic), Clare Armstrong (ABC) and Phil Coorey (Australian Financial Review).

Speersy threw the first question to Comrade Aly. Let’s go to the transcript:

David Speers: So, Scott Morrison says Islamic institutions remain fragmented and inconsistently governed, in contrast to Christian and Jewish denominations. Waleed, is he right?

Waleed Aly: Well, they’re fragmented, yeah. I don’t think it is true to say that that is juxtaposed with Christian communities… It’s the narrative that appeals to people who know nothing about the Muslim community…if you were serious about something like this, you would probably talk to the Muslim community. You wouldn’t go to Israel.

Clare Armstrong: One hundred per cent.

So, there you have it. Waleed Aly said that Scott Morrison knows nothing about the Muslim community and Comrade Armstrong agreed one hundred per cent.

Speers did not contest Aly’s put-down of Morrison’s view – with which Armstrong agreed “one hundred percent” [That’s all? Why not 105 per cent? – MWD Editor] . Then it was Armstrong’s turn:

Clare Armstrong: Yeah, it was such a condescending intervention to have been made in the way that it was, from where it was. I completely agree. If you are serious about wanting to make a meaningful contribution to social cohesion in this country, you meet people where they are, and with respect, you don’t stand on the pulpit on the other side of the world and lecture everybody.

So, there you have it. The ABC’s Clare Armstrong dismissed Australia’s 30th prime minister as oh-so-condescending.

And that was it. Speers changed the topic and put the next question to Coorey about Australia Day. And so it came to pass that two Insiders panellists (Aly and Armstrong) criticised Morrison. Speers did not contest their views. And Coorey did not get an opportunity to address the issue. There was no viewpoint diversity – which explains why Insiders is oh-so-boring as mainly like-minded journalists/commentators in Canberra talk over one another on a Sunday morning while rarely disagreeing with each other. Can You Bear It?

  • David Williamson & Will Kostakis overlook censorship by Randa Abdel-Fattah and Louise Adler

The left is still in denial about the decision of the Adelaide Festival to disinvite Palestinian Australian writer Randa Abdel-Fattah from appearing at the Adelaide Writers’ Week at the invitation of its director Louise Adler. The decision was reversed after the 2026 AWW was cancelled. Some 180 authors withdrew from the 2026 AWW in protest at Abdel-Fattah’s disinvitation.

Interviewed by the Australian Financial Review on 28 January, playwright David Williamson had this to say:

David Williamson: I’ve met Abdel-Fattah a couple of times and found her very personable with strong views that she is entitled to have. Censoring writers has always been dangerous territory.

Interviewed on ABC News Breakfast on 5 February, Melbourne-based writer Will Kostakis said this:

Will Kostakis: …Adelaide Writers’ Week was one of the best ones. It was the one you really wanted to get an invitation to. And so this whole sorry affair has been really horrible, like I am so glad that authors stood beside Randa Abdel-Fattah and that boycott. You know, just showed our strength in saying, No, this is unacceptable. But yeah, it’s, it’s really heartening to see the community come together.

Neither Williamson nor Kostakis were challenged by their interviewers. The fact is that Abdel-Fattah was disinvited because one of many concerns regarding her comments made previously about Israel and Zionism included the comment that Zionists do not deserve cultural safety. Moreover, both Abdel-Fattah and Adler have been accused of petitioning the AWW in 2025 to disinvite New York Times Jewish American columnist Tom Friedman. Can You Bear It?

A PATRICIA KARVELAS MOMENT

  • Patricia Karvelas expresses ignorance about one of Australia’s top rating shows

Patricia (“I like to be called PK”) Karvelas is one of the ABC’s better – and fairer – presenters. However, she seems to reflect the insularity of those who work at the taxpayer funded broadcaster in that they live in the inner-city and travel to the ABC’s inner-city studios in Melbourne’s Southbank or Sydney’s Ultimo, or, well, inner-city Canberra.

It’s called insularity. How else to explain that PK – as she likes to be called – appears never to have heard of Network Nine’s Married At First Sight (MAFS). Now Ellie’s (male) co-owner regards MAFS as an example of the decline of Western civilisation – involving couples unknown to each other agreeing to marriage in front of Nine’s cameras.

In any event, this is how PK introduced a segment on her ABC TV Afternoon Briefing on 2 February:

Patricia Karvelas: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese addressed the Labor caucus this morning and talked up the passing of its new gun controls and hate laws following the Bondi terror attack. Now he also used the opportunity to criticise the Liberal and Nationals infighting, comparing it to a popular reality show, Married At First Sight.

Anthony Albanese: So back to work. That’s what, that’s what we are focused on. The other side, we’ll allow them to engage in, in their, their bizarre behaviour. I note that Married At First Sight begins tonight, and it’s a bit like that with the relationships on the other side – you know they’re going to end badly. You know, there’s going to be cheating involved, and they’re going to be not truthful to each other.

PK went on to discuss the day’s politics with the Liberal Party’s Garth Hamilton and the Labor Party’s Patrick Gorman in the presence of ABC’s David Speers. Let’s go to the transcript:

Patricia Karvelas: Okay, Patrick, this is a week where the government will be having to focus on some pretty big issues. Obviously, you know the Married At First Sight – is that what it’s called? Clearly, I’m not very cool.

Patrick Gorman: [Joking] If it’s not on the ABC I don’t watch it, Patricia.

Patricia Karvelas: Same here.

David Speers: Don’t pretend you don’t watch it.

Patricia Karvelas: Same here. It sounds great. But it’s, it’s obviously a theatre that is sort of easy for the government to have some time away from scrutiny. That means that it seems like maybe the foot’s off the accelerator. What’s on the agenda this week?….

Fancy that. The insular PK seemed unaware of Australia’s top rating TV program. Her defence was that she is “not very cool”.

Lotsa thanks to the avid Geelong reader who drew attention to the comments by The Age’s Stephen Brook on ABC News Breakfast the following morning. Let’s go the transcript:

Emma Rebellato: So yesterday, the Prime Minister sort of talked up a TV show while comparing them to the Coalition. Tell us about this story.

Stephen Brook: Well, I think it is actually Australia’s most popular TV show. But I was shocked to listen to an ABC podcast with Patricia Karvelas, your colleague, who professed to not really know what Married At First Sight is. So the prime minister was having a bit of a burn at the Coalition and their dysfunction by comparing the Liberal Party and the National party split to an episode of Married At First Sight. Which is, for the uninitiated, a show where strangers who do not know each other are married for the first time that they meet each other. It’s a fake marriage, obviously, because in Australia, you’ve got to sign the forms of marriage in advance. Anyway, he then – and then they have to live together, and once a week, they meet for a dinner party, which is chaotic, largely alcohol-fuelled and very shouty….

That’s a fair description. The big media story was that Patricia Karvelas seems unaware of the existence of what Nine journalist Nell Geraets has called “one of the most popular and controversial reality shows in history”.

Verily, a PK Moment.

[Quelle Surprise! One of the ABC’s leading journalists is not aware of what could be called a widely watched General Rehearsal for the End of the World taking place for over a decade on Australia’s commercial television. – MWD Editor.]

Since the ABC TV’s Media Watch program commenced in 1989 it has consisted of presenters laying down the (media behaviour) law as if they were a modern-day Moses descending from the mountain, commandments in hand. All of them have been left-of-centre types as befits a Conservative Free Zone.

  • ABC’s Media Watch in Laura Tingle cover up

ABC TV’s Media Watch emerged from its 10-week break on 2 February. Prior to the occasion The Guardian Australia’s media reporter Amanda Meade opined that the program presenter Linton Besser and executive producer Mario Christodoulou would return “with a spring in their step”. Alas, it was not to be.

Despite the big news stories after Media Watch went on a holiday on 17 November, presenter Linton Besser commenced last week’s program with a complaint about the cross-promotion between Nine’s TV and newspapers and the Australian Open which was sponsored by Nine. This was not particularly newsworthy since the Australian Open had concluded before Media Watch aired last Monday.

Media Watch ended with a criticism of Network 7’s coverage of the opening of the new Metro in Melbourne. It was another cross-promotion story – since the Metro Tunnel company sponsors Channel 7’s 4 pm news bulletin. Yawn.

In the middle, Linton Besser presented a critique of the Trump administration’s handling of the protests against the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency in Minneapolis including the killing by ICE of protestor Alex Pretti. Despite evidence suggesting that Fox News and Sky News’ coverage demonstrated viewpoint diversity, Besser banged on about the coverage of some of Fox/Sky News presenters. And then Besser said this:

Linton Besser: Some, including here at the ABC, weren’t waiting for the outcome of that investigation, with Auntie being forced to correct its global affairs editor’s premature claim that Pretti’s death was a murder.

Now avid followers of Media Watch are sure to know who the ABC’s global affairs editor is. Namely, Laura Tingle. But Besser did not mention Tingle by name. Convenient, eh? Also, Besser did not put a photo of Tingle’s post on the screen – only part of the ABC’s printed correction.

The story was broken by Sky News’ Max Aldred who advised ABC management of Tingle’s howler. Here’s a pic of how Sky News’ reported the Tingle quote which Besser declined to cite:

Note that despite what is supposed to be an analysis of the media on the taxpayer funded public broadcaster, Linton Besser chose to editorialise. He referred to “the fraying of America’s social compact” and described President Donald J. Trump as a “ rogue president”. This is how Besser concluded his rant:

Linton Besser: This is, I am chastened to say, where it appears we have landed – hasty justifications of extreme violence by the state and wilful blindness by some to what all of us can plainly see. Outrageous for a government, but even worse for a so-called fourth estate.

For his part, Ellie’s male co-owner is CHASTENED TO SAY that if Comrade Besser wants to be an activist he should step down as a journalist.

MWD EXCLUSIVE

  • Museum of Australian Democracy (MOAD) grudgingly throws in the towel re its John Kerr misinformation – despite the silence of its chair Barrie Cassidy

As avid Media Watch Dog readers will be aware from the (hugely popular) Correspondence section, on 7 January, Gerard Henderson emailed former ABC presenter Barrie Cassidy concerning the misinformation – or was it disinformation? – in MOAD’s Dismissal Exhibition.

Your man Cassidy is chair of MOAD and presented the first session of what was called “The Dismissal 50th Anniversary Panel Discussions” at Old Parliament House (OPH) on 11 November 2025.

Not surprisingly, Comrade Cassidy went back to his days at the Conservative Free Zone that is the taxpayer funded public broadcaster and stacked the first panel with critics of Governor-General Sir John Kerr’s decision to dismiss Gough Whitlam’s Labor government on 11 November 1975. This occurred because the Malcolm Fraser-led Opposition blocked supply and, Gough Whitlam-led government wanted to govern without supply and Whitlam would not advise an election. Kerr resolved the issue by dismissing Whitlam and appointing Fraser as caretaker prime minister pending an election on 2 December 1975 which the Coalition won decisively.

It’s understandable why Governor-General Sam Mostyn was invited to speak – but she is a Kerr critic – see MWD’s Correspondence section on 12 December 2025 here.

Other Kerr critics/antagonists on Cassidy’s panel were ABC chair Kim Williams, journalist Niki Savva, former Labor attorney-general Gareth Evans and journalists Paul Kelly and Kerry O’Brien. Not a Kerr supporter among this lot.

But MWD digresses – not for the first time. Gerard Henderson saw the Dismissal Exhibition at Old Parliament House on 20 December 2025. He noticed one exhibit which stated:

Malcolm Fraser’s handwritten notes on conversation with Sir John Kerr – 11 November 1975

Kerr called Fraser on the morning of 11 November to discuss the conditions of his appointment, including a guarantee that Supply would pass. Kerr later claimed he had not spoken to Fraser that morning – this document suggests otherwise.

On loan from Malcolm Fraser Collection, University of Melbourne Archives, Archives and Special Collections, University of Melbourne

This was misinformation at best – disinformation at worst. In his 1978 book Matters for Judgment, Kerr wrote that he spoke to Malcolm Fraser on the morning of 11 November 1975 to find out whether the Opposition was still intent on blocking supply. Fraser replied in the affirmative. Kerr never claimed that he had not spoken to Fraser on the morning of 11 November 1975. MOAD just made this up. What Kerr contested was Fraser’s version of the phone call that he first revealed in 1987 – which led to the allegation that Kerr tipped off Fraser that he was soon to dismiss Whitlam. Fraser’s version was quickly embraced by the left to discredit Kerr.

As mentioned earlier, Comrade Cassidy went “under the bed” and declined to address the issue. Indeed, the MOAD chair threw the matter to MOAD’s director Stephanie Bull and correspondence took place with Henderson. Re which see last week’s MWD.

In her final letter to Henderson on 22 January, Ms Bull conceded that the label was “imprecise” and “could have led to an incorrect explanation”. She advised that the text had been “updated”. In his final letter to Bell on 27 January, Henderson pointed out that the label was not imprecise – it was simply wrong.

Gerard Henderson is not sure whether MOAD made one change to the label – or more than one. In any event, an avid Melbourne MWD reader was in Canberra on Saturday 31 January and noted that the label now reads:

Malcolm Fraser’s handwritten note on conversation with Sir John Kerr, 1 November 1975:

Kerr spoke with Fraser on 11 November about the condition of his appointment including a guarantee that Supply would pass while Fraser claimed this discussion happened during their morning phone call, Kerr maintained it occurred later in the day.

How about that? MOAD has corrected the label. But there is no acknowledgement that a change has been made. And there is no apology to the Kerr family for falsely implying that he lied by claiming that no such phone call had ever taken place. Somewhat unprofessional, don’t you think?

Moreover, MOAD still does not acknowledge that Kerr contested what was said during this phone call. Rather MOAD has chosen to accept Fraser’s version (which is unfavourable to Kerr) to Kerr’s version. This despite the fact that Fraser claimed that his memory was “notoriously fallible”.

Nor does MOAD acknowledge that a number of individuals, apart from Kerr, challenged Fraser’s version – including the late Sir David Smith, the author Peter O’Brien, James Watson and Gerard Henderson – most recently in his book Malcolm Fraser: A Personal Reflection (Connor Court, 2025). Henderson believes – with supporting evidence – that Fraser’s handwritten note was backdated by Fraser when he located it in the early 2000s – around a quarter of a century after the Dismissal.

MOAD’s Dismissal Exhibition concludes on Saturday 8 February. As of a week ago the Exhibition’s time-line still included this (contested) claim:

Kerr telephoned Fraser who agrees to the terms of an interim appointment as prime minister. 10 am.

Once again, this is Fraser’s version. Kerr always maintained that he only discussed whether the Opposition was still intent on blocking supply. Kerr has a near contemporaneous note, dated 16 November 1975, to support his view.

Fraser has a note dated 11 November 1975 – but the writing and signature at the bottom of the note is dramatically different to the writing at the top of the note. What’s more, the “7” in “1975” appears to be written over an “8”. This has not been explained by those who accept Fraser’s version of the conversation and reject Kerr’s version. The late Malcolm Fraser, and left-of-centre journalist Margaret Simons who co-authored the 2010 book Malcolm Fraser: The Political Memoir, declined to explain to Gerard Henderson the different handwriting on Fraser’s note.

MWD will keep readers in the loop if there are further developments – including whether Barrie Cassidy will come out of his safe-house and respond to Hendo’s (courteous) email.

 

* * * *

Until Next Time.

* * * * *