GERARD HENDERSON’S MEDIA WATCH DOG

ISSUE – NO. 778

12 June 2026

* * * *

* * * *

THE LATEST

  • 7.30’s Sarah Ferguson throws the switch to good behaviour when interviewing treasurer Jim Chalmers

Did anyone see Sarah Ferguson’s interview with Treasurer Jim Chalmers on Thursday 11 June? The 7.30 presenter was on her best behaviour. Sure, there was the occasional interruption, albeit of the non-confrontational kind. And the questions of – and challenges to – the Treasurer were appropriate.

In short, Comrade Ferguson’s tone was dramatically different from her 34 interruptions during her hostile interview with Opposition leader Angus Taylor on 14 May 2026.

Which raises the question. Could Sarah Ferguson have been counselled by ABC management to the effect that the best interviews occur when interviewers listen to what the interviewee has to say – rather than focusing on what the next interruption will be. We shall see. MWD will report back on the next Ferguson/Taylor interview.

● All quiet on the Nine Entertainment front as Wilcox cartoon found to contain an anti-Semitic trope

As avid readers will recall, Media Watch Dog was highly critical of Cathy Wilcox’s cartoon which was published in Nine Entertainment’s The Age and Sydney Morning Herald on 7 January 2026. Here’s a reminder of Wilcox’s work:

As MWD put it at the time, the cartoon suggested that Australians who supported a Royal Commission into the Bondi massacre were being propped up by political conservatives who were marching to the tune of Israel’s prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s drum. The figures appear to be Rupert Murdoch, Jillian Segal, John Howard, Jacinta Nampijinpa Price, Sussan Ley and David Littleproud.

MWD is not always in agreement with decisions of the Press Council – but does respect its decisions. In this instance, the APC’s findings – following a complaint – are worth reading. Especially since Cathy Wilcox strongly defended her cartoon. Here’s an excerpt from the APC’s Conclusion – the full decision can be found at https://presscouncil.org.au/document/1859-complainant

….The Council acknowledges the publications’ [i.e. Nine’s The Age and Sydney Morning Herald) comments that the cartoon’s intention was to comment on the politicisation of the calls for a Royal Commission. The Council also acknowledges the publications’ comments that there was no intention to cause offence or prejudice. The Council notes that the intention of the cartoon or the message it is attempting to convey may be interpreted in different ways. In this context, the Council notes the depiction of political figures carrying the purported grassroots movement above their heads, while Netanyahu, who is both Jewish and the Israeli Prime Minister, stands apart, beating the drum to which the political figures march. The Council considers this imagery encodes the antisemitic trope that Jewish people secretly control or manipulate global events, governments, financial systems, or the media. The Council considers this imagery was likely to cause or contribute to substantial offence, distress and prejudice particularly to those who are Jewish.

While the Council recognises the public interest in commenting on the political motivation of some calling for the Royal Commission into the terrorist attack, the Council does not consider it was sufficient to justify the substantial offence, distress or prejudice caused or contributed to, in depicting those calling for a Royal Commission as being manipulated by the Israeli Prime Minister. Accordingly, the Council concludes that the publications failed to take reasonable steps to avoid causing or contributing materially to substantial offence, distress or prejudice in breach of General Principle 6.

So, the Australian Press Council found that the Wilcox cartoon encoded the anti-Semitic trope that Jewish people secretly control or manipulate global events, governments, financial systems or the media.

A powerful critique to be sure. However, when MWD went out today neither Wilcox, nor The Age, nor the Sydney Morning Herald had commented publicly on the decision that the cartoon ran an anti-Semitic trope. MWD will report back if Nine Entertainment or Ms Wilcox comes out from under the bed (as the saying goes) on this occasion.

  • The Australia Institute’s Amy Remeikis makes a false claim about Tony Abbott

Many ABC journalists are close to journalists of the left wing The Guardian Australia and activists at the avowedly leftist Australia Institute. Amy Remeikis is the author of the error-ridden book Where It All Went Wrong: The Case Against John Howard. (Simon & Schuster, 2026 – this is reviewed by Gerard Henderson in the current issue of The Sydney Institute Review Online.).

Formerly a political reporter for The Guardian Australia who was a panellist on the ABC TV Insiders program, Remeikis is currently The Australia Institute’s political analyst. In this capacity she received a soft interview from Sam Hawley on ABC Radio National’s ABC News Daily on 9 June. It was a matter of “don’t talk about my book on John Howard”.

At the commencement of the interview, Hawley referred to the abuse directed at Victorian Labor Party Premier Jacinta Allan by a brothel owner in Melbourne – with a campaign to “Ditch The Witch”. This has been condemned by many – including Liberal Party leader Jess Wilson. This is how the interview commenced:

Sam Hawley: I’m Sam Hawley…the last time we had a fierce debate about Ditch the Witch was when Julia Gillard was Prime Minister and Tony Abbott stood in front of a “Ditch The Witch” sign at a protest outside Parliament House. It was pretty outrageous then, wasn’t it?….

Amy Remeikis: Yeah, I mean, I think it was a particular flashpoint in Australian politics for a reason because it was so outrageous….And when he stood next to that sign, which, you know, he later said, “Oh, that was a mistake”. Obviously, it also fed into other, you know, quite sexist attacks against the first female prime minister, Julia Gillard, at the time. I think it was just such a shock to see somebody so senior in politics effectively, as it seemed at least visually, to be endorsing these attacks.

This is arrant nonsense. Tony Abbott addressed the crowd in Canberra outside Parliament House on 23 March 2011. Someone stood behind him with a “Ditch The Witch” poster, referring to Julia Gillard. There is no evidence that the then Opposition leader was aware of the sign.

Remeikis’ claim that Tony Abbott stood “next to the sign” is totally false. Yet she was not corrected by Sam Hawley – who herself had implied, falsely, that Abbott had consciously stood in front of a “Ditch the Witch” sign. In short, the ABC/Australia Institute Entente error rate was 100 per cent. Can You Bear It?

Tony Abbott addressing a crowd outside Parliament House on 23 March 2011, standing next to Coalition MPs

  • Comrade Remeikis outs Tony Abbott as someone who is intent on wrecking the planet

While on the topic of Amy Remeikis, thanks to the avid reader who drew Media Watch Dog’s attention to her article in The New Daily, which is a product of the trade union movement, on 10 June. The piece titled “There’s only one reason a Liberal-One Nation deal makes sense; this is it.”

In her column, Comrade Remeikis delivers a rant against Tony Abbott – maintaining that his intention is to win a seat at the next election and unite the Liberal Party with One Nation as a means of becoming prime minister again. Or something like that.

Remeikis relied on a column by Abbott antagonist Niki Savva in Nine Entertainment’s Sydney Morning Herald and The Age on 4 June. Believe it or not, Comrade Savva went on to claim that one of Abbott’s aims was to “wreck the planet”. All on his own, apparently.

Towards the end of the rant, The New Daily columnist Remeikis had this to say:

It’s the political version of re-connecting with your toxic ex on Facebook and thinking you can give it one more go because your current relationship has lost its spark. We know how that ends. Just as we know how this will end. But the lure of disruption seems more attractive than more of the same. If Labor keeps offering that up – just as it did the last time Abbott played these cards, it is writing the end of its own story. Abbott needs to be faced front on. Shirt-fronted, some would say. That means giving people not just something to hold on to, in terms of policy changes, but straight-up defences and pushback against his rhetoric.

Abbott has never held back but the rules of civility should never be decided by the aggressor. Let’s see if Labor has learned from history.

How romantic. At the end of the column there is this:

Amy Remeikis is a contributing editor for The New Daily and chief political analyst for The Australia Institute

How about that? There is no reference to Remeikis’ howler-ridden opus magnum – or is it magnum opus? – Where It All Went Wrong: The Case Against John Howard. Moreover the piece is illustrated with a photo of Abbott planting a peck on Hanson’s cheek. Or is it the other way around? And here’s another question: Can You Bear It?

  • Former Teal MP Zoe Daniel gets more coverage on the ABC

The ABC’s role in promoting former ABC presenter and former Teal MP for Goldstein in Melbourne Zoe Daniel continues apace.

On Thursday 11 June, ABC Radio National Big Ideas devoted the entire program to a discussion – which it presented as “Zoe Daniel with Thom Woodroofe on winning middle Australia in the climate wars”. This is how Big Ideas described the program:

Has the Iran War got you thinking about changing to an electric vehicle? Did government subsidies help you go solar, or install a home battery? When renewable energy makes good economic sense, and eases cost of living pressures, people want in. As the public’s desire for action on climate change is eclipsed by other concerns, and beset by vested interests and mis and disinformation, how does climate policy win back ordinary people to galvanise progress once again? This event was recorded at Readings bookshop on 20 May 2026.

And here’s how the left-wing bookshop Readings, in the inner-city Melbourne suburb of Carlton, described the occasion:

Join us to hear Thom Woodroofe discuss his new book, Power, Prosperity & Planet, with Zoe Daniel. In Power, Prosperity & Planet, Woodroofe outlines why the next wave of climate and energy policy in Australia must focus intently on middle Australia, designing policies that make sense from the Cabinet Room to every lounge room across the mortgage belts and beyond. The price – economically, politically and environmentally – is too great if we do not.

Note that Readings did not say that Zoe Daniel was a Teal MP who was defeated by the Liberal Party’s Tim Wilson at the May 2025 election. Nor did the ABC.

The final result came through some time after Comrade Daniel led the well-off leftist luvvies to an exuberant “victory” dance at a post-election day party.

This is how Zoe Daniel was described by Big Ideas: “Former Independent Member for Goldstein, Former ABC journalist and foreign correspondent, independent chair, Mental Health Victoria”.

Thom Woodroofe is the Senior International Fellow at the Smart Energy Council. He was the principal advisor to former Labor Prime Minister Kevin Rudd when he was Australian ambassador to the United States.

In short, Comrade Daniel is an eco-catastrophist. And so is Comrade Woodroofe. And Big Ideas presenter Natasha Mitchell is a left-wing journalist at the taxpayer funded public broadcaster in Melbourne. There was no viewpoint diversity in Big Ideas as Woodroofe, Daniel and Mitchell all agreed with each other about climate change and all that.

Media Watch Dog will return to this topic next week. In the meantime, here’s an example of how Zoe Daniel banged on about politics in what was presented as an interview:

Zoe Daniel: We’ve allowed division to percolate into those communities, that has been fomented by the fossil fuel industry to protect itself. We have seen Donald Trump pull out of the Paris Agreement twice, so fragmenting that process and scaffolding, if I could call it that. And we now have One Nation in this country, similarly fomenting division based on the frustration of these communities who feel that no one is listening, and that they’re going backwards, not forwards. So, we’re going to try to spend some time in this conversation on the how do we fix it…

So, I think one of the issues that we have is the power and the money, and as Thom alluded to, large third-party organisations like Advance, and Australians for Prosperity, that are operating currently in Australia are at least partly funded by the fossil fuel sector. So big coal, big gas, and others. And so in the case of the seat of Goldstein, arguably that had an influence on the outcome of the seat, because they’re able to pay for advertising.

So here is Comrade Zoe using the taxpayer funded public broadcaster to promote her (Teal) political views prior to the next election. Can You Bear It?

[No. Not really. Now that you ask. I understand that not one of the duo realised that retail energy prices in Australia have increased 5 to 10 per cent annually over the last 3 years. By the way, wasn’t Comrade Daniel in receipt of lotsa moolah from the multi-millionaires in Simon Holmes à Court’s Climate 200? – MWD Editor.]

Zoe Daniel dancing the election night away when the Teals thought she had won Goldstein in the 2025 election.

  • Sydney Morning Herald maintains that the Letters to the Editor must be “convincing” but publishes literary sludge

As avid readers know, in past issues Media Watch Dog has commented on the domination on the Sydney Morning Herald’s Letters Page by left-of-centre types who regard themselves as progressives. [Don’t you mean leftist luvvies? – MWD Editor.]

In Issue 766, Ellie’s (male) co-owner quoted the SMH’s editor as stating the newspaper “stands for balance, rigour and evidence in an increasingly polarised world”. A clear case of a Nine newspapers editor throwing the switch to denial – especially with respect to the Letters Page.

Thanks to the avid reader Riley Brown who provided MWD with his correspondence with the SMH Letters editor on 1 June 2026. Here’s how it commenced:

Tony Abbott has just set a record in the Sydney Morning Herald opinion pages (Letters, 1 June). Seventeen letters to nil mocking, criticising, chastising and castigating the former opposition leader and the Liberal Party for selecting him as party president, a volunteer position. In the Herald’s May 7 edition, the tally was only 7-0, although it did include an anti-Abbott cartoon by Cathy Wilcox. Labor and Greens supporters must really be worried probably because they remember how effective Abbott was as opposition leader against Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd.

Riley Brown

Riley Brown had previously forwarded a letter to the SMH on 7 May pointing out its lack-of-balance on its Letters Page – bearing in mind that Nine Newspapers boast that they are “Independent. Always.” Mr Brown’s letter was not published.

On 8 June, the indefatigable Mr Brown wrote again to the Letters Editor – in the following terms:

Last Friday the Herald published seven letters critical of One Nation and zero in support (Letters, 5 June). Monday’s tally increased to 9-0 (Letters, 8 June). Pauline Hanson still has a way to go to beat Tony Abbott’s record of 17-0 record (Letters, 1 June). But as the pollsters say, the trend is your friend.

Riley Brown

This time, Riley Brown received a reply from the anonymous “Letters ed”. Here it is:

Dear Mr Brown,

We are aware of the predominance of letters criticising Pauline Hanson. If you believe it to be unfair and a sign of bias, please write us a convincing letter in support of her.

Letters ed

How about that? The Sydney Morning Herald is willing to publish Riley Brown’s letter – provided it is “convincing” – on the SMH’s Letters Page. Let’s have a look at what the SMH regards as a convincing letter by examining the 17 to Zip letters antagonistic to Tony Abbott published on 1 June 2026. Under the heading “Voice from past no help to Libs’ future”. Here we go – with 17 out of 17 letters of the Abbott antagonistic kind.

• Steve Dillon of Thirroul claims that “If Abbott were to reflect upon the broken promises mirror on the Liberal wall of integrity he would find it well and truly shattered”.

• John Swanton of Coogee decrees that Tony Abbott is “the ultimate sandpit bully”. By the way, his letter commenced: “Poor diddums Tantrum Taylor”.

• Alan Marel of North Curl Curl asks whether Tony Abbott really believes that “only Liberal voters truly love Australia”. Comrade Marel answers his own question in the affirmative.

• Alan Rosendale of Leichhardt declares that Abbott “looks and walks like someone’s grandfather trying to make an impression at this grandkid’s 18th birthday party and sounds about as relevant”.

• John Burman of Port Macquarie offers more of the same in 27 words.

• Glenn Wood of Bardon (Queensland) queries: “With Tony and Angus, the Liberals now have two right-wingers and no left wings. So like the legendary `Oozlum Bird’ it will spin in ever diminishing circles, eventually disappearing like a ‘suppository of wisdom’”.

• Maclaren Wall of Manly provides “diversity” by fanging not only Abbott but also Alexander Downer.

• Donald Sleer says of Abbott’s appointment – “to go forward the Liberals look backwards”.

• Ian Adair of Hunters Hill describes Abbott as “pensioned-off Don Quixote on a bike”.

• Dave Watts of Avalon believes that Abbott “will be the prick” that finally makes the Liberal Party balloon “go pffft”.

• John Payne of Kelso compares Abbott’s election as Liberal Party president as equivalent to “a farmer attempting to flog his old dead draught horse back to life”.

• Bill Young of Killcare Heights states: “Sorry, Tony, but unless you’re having another head-bobbing mind blank…”. [Is he really “sorry”? – MWD Editor.]

• Ferdo Mathews of Robina in Queensland suggests that “Australian citizens approach Pope Leo to appoint Tony Abbott as a saint”. In his gross ignorance, Comrade Mathews does not understand that to qualify for sainthood a soul needs to be dead.

• Paul Duncan of Leura in his wisdom writes: “At last some good news for Anthony Albanese, Abbott got the job. Pauline Hanson probably turned him down”. It is not clear what Mr Duncan was on about. Or, indeed, on.

• Paul Keys of Clouds Creek reckons that “with Tony as president…he could try to get God Save the Queen reinstated as the national anthem”. Comrade Keys seems unaware that the Liberal Party president has no such power and that Queen Elizabeth II died in September 2022 – and, consequently, cannot be “saved”.

• John Grinter of Katoomba writes: “Tony, your aggressive bigotry will not win the Liberals a single vote let alone a seat.”

• Jennifer Briggs of Kilaben Bay concludes the SMH Letters Page anti-Abbott rant with this 19-word rant: “I seem to recall Tony Abbott eliciting quite a revolt in 2019. I’ve never ceased to find him revolting.” Groan. It’s not clear what happened in 2019. [MWD does not recall a revolt taking place in 2019. Moreover, the revolt/revolting word usage first appeared when Moses was in short pants. – MWD Editor.]

And this is what the SMH Letters Editor regards as so “convincing” as to warrant a place in the SMH Letters Page. Turn it up. Much of it is poorly written, abusive, hyperbolic, sneering literary sludge. Can You Bear It?

[No. Not really now that you ask. It reminds me of the Letters Page in Sydney University’s student newspaper – Honi Soit or was it Hanoi Soit?

Remember to follow up next week if Riley Brown manages to get a “convincing” letter published in the SMH. – 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. In over three decades, the taxpayer funded media “czar” has never had a conservative presenter.

  • Linton Besser drops his sneering at Pauline Hanson

Linton Besser is one of the oh-so-many ABC journalists who are left-of-centre or leftist within the taxpayer funded public broadcaster’s Conservative Free Zone. As presenter of the ABC TV’s Media Watch program he is one of Australia’s most influential journalists.

On Monday 8 June Besser did a segment titled “Operation One Nation” about the rise and rise of Pauline Hanson’s One Nation Party. Here is Besser’s early comments:

Linton Besser: Now, to the remaking of Australian politics, with an earthquake opinion poll one week ago dragging the ultimate outsider into centre lane:

Tim Lester: … a new poll [by Redbridge] suggests Pauline Hanson might just blast her way into government

Linton Besser: And if there were any doubts about these tectonic changes, they were dispelled this morning with an historic Newspoll. One Nation’s rocketing numbers have come despite shunning sections of the media, recently ejecting the ABC from a critical press conference.

So, there you have it. On 8 June, Besser acknowledged that One Nation’s success in the opinion polls amounted to an “earthquake” with “tectonic changes”.

But on 23 February, Besser said this:

Having “her say” has never been an issue for the one-time peddler of fish-and-chips from Ipswich who after decades in the public eye is now one of our most enduring politicians and one whom the media has always struggled to get a handle on.

So, as recently as late February, Besser was still sneering at Hanson as a former “peddler of fish and chips”. Now he maintains that the mainstream media did not understand One Nation’s support. However, this ignores the fact that Sky News and the News Corp papers did get a handle on One Nation. Unlike the ABC. But then, ABC journalists for eons have mockingly referred to “Sky News After Dark” and ignored its importance in the political debate – not only on subscription television but also on Sky News Regional which is free-to-air in large parts of rural and regional Australia.

DOCUMENTATION

The good news on climate goes unreported in left-leaning outlets

There was great interest in MWD’s “The End is not so Nigh” segment of 22 May of this year. It concerned the latest news in the realm of climate modelling, essentially that the most extreme global warming scenarios were being dropped from the next round of UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change projections due to being “implausible”.

The segment ended on this optimistic note:

Hopefully, in time, this good news will filter down to the ABC and other left-leaning media organisations.

Alas, in the three weeks since, this has not come to pass. There has been scant coverage of the change by the ABC or the Nine Newspapers. The Guardian’s only contribution was to have climate reporter Graham Readfearn write a column attacking The Australian’s Chris Mitchell under the headline “When is rare good news on climate science actually bad? When News Corp misrepresents it”.

In response, MWD asks: When does good news on climate science get reported by The Guardian? When it can be used to bash News Corp.

By the way, Chris Mitchell’s column titled “Climate writers drown in sea of misinformation” was published in The Australian on 8 June.

On 5 June, the Nine Newspapers ran a two-page spread about the rise of climate scepticism in Australia and around the world. Nowhere in the piece by Nick O’Malley & Mike Foley was space found for the good news about climate modelling.

Could reckless reporting of implausible worst-case scenarios by left-leaning journalists have contributed to climate scepticism? Asking that question would require left-leaning journalists to even admit those scenarios are implausible, which they seem in no rush to do.

 

* * * *

Until Next Time.

* * * *