GERARD HENDERSON’S MEDIA WATCH DOG

ISSUE – NO. 780

26 June 2026

* * * *

* * * *

The Latest

  • Vote For Speersy – Tops For Humility

The BIG news on ABC TV’s News Breakfast on Friday 26 June was the announcement that ABC TV Insiders presenter David Speers has been nominated for a Walkley. Really.

Here’s how the matter was announced on News Breakfast during the last Friday of June:

James Glenday: Now it is time to get some more political analysis, and we’re joined by a man, some call the host with the most, our favourite silver-haired and suave political insider, who is once again in the running for a silver Logie. We are, of course, talking about that guy on your screen, David Speers. David.

David Speers: You make me blush. You’re making me blush…

James Glenday: Well, we haven’t even started yet, because we’ve just prepared a little treat for you this morning. Let’s take a look at some of David’s best work…

Here some boring silent images of Speersy splashed across the screen.

James Glenday: Oh, look at that, and apparently he plays the trumpet too. I’m not sure if he was on that track, but even if he wasn’t, he’s got my vote.

Emma Rebellato: Yes, everyone, vote for him. Vote for David. David, just don’t interrupt. We need the vote, we need you to get this logie. The QR code is going to pop up, here it is.

James Glenday: There it is.

David Speers: I’m very embarrassed at this point, and look, very humbled as well. Thank you.

Turn it up. If your man Speersy was so humble, why did he participate willingly in the “Speersy Should get a Silver Logie” campaign?

Ellie’s (male) co-owner believes that your man Speersy should follow the example of the Victorian based writer Gerald Murnane. Interviewed by The Australian’s Caroline Overington after he received an AO gong in the King’s Birthday Honours list, the 81-year-old novelist declared:

I thought it wasn’t coming and now I’m not going to say I’m humbled. I’m not humbled. I think that I deserve it. And I am enjoying it, certainly.

Quite so. If Speersy was as humble as he maintains, he would be asking ABC TV viewers to vote for someone else in the Silver Logie category.

And then there was this:

Emma Rebellato: And David, before you go, a question without notice. Have you picked out your suit for the Logies yet?

David Speers: No, I haven’t. Maybe I should get some suggestions. You’re all, you’re all pretty snappy.

James Glenday: We’ll get our audience to write in. They will love that.

James Glenday: Please do. Please do.

David Speers: I’m thinking the boring black tuxedo.

Emma Rebellato: Snap it up with a brooch or something.

David Speers: Jeez, that’s, that’s pretty bold for me.

Emma Rebellato: We’ll work on it, we’ll work on it.

James Glenday: Thank you very much, Speersy. …

If Comrade Speersy is as humble as he maintains, MWD suggests a sackcloth and ashes attire, plus sandals.

An “I’m More Humble Than Thou” advertisement for Comrade Speers as shown on ABC TV’s News Breakfast Friday 25 June

 

Speersy at work – or is it sleep? As shown on ABC TV in support of the taxpayer funded Speersy for a Logie campaign.

 

James Glenday and Emma Rebellato get on the “Speersy for a Logie” cart

 

  • Teals finally acknowledge their political impotence – but not the ABC

It was the oh-so-familiar (political) shuffle. From the Sydney Morning Herald to the ABC. On Thursday 25 June, the SMH led with a Page 1 story by Jacqueline Maley titled “Teals launch new party to battle voter disaffection”.

The news was that Teal Independents Allegra Spender and Zali Steggall have decided to form a new political party titled Community Strong Australia. Yes, Community Strong Australia which has only two members – namely Ms Spender and Ms Steggall. Fancy that. But the story led Nine’s SMH.

Not long after, the SMH for the morning landed with a bang on Ellie’s kennel, the Teal pair were off for a soft interview with Sally Sara on the ABC Radio National Breakfast at the taxpayer funded public broadcaster’s Parliament House studio in Canberra.

Ms Sara asked a couple of probing questions But not many. It turns out that Community Strong Australia [will anyone be able to remember the name? – MWD Editor.] does not have a leader and the only members accepted by CSA will be members of parliament or candidates for an election. In other words, the most undemocratic political party in Australian history – apart from the one-time Communist Party of Australia whose leaders were decided by Vladimir Lenin’s heirs in Moscow.

What Sara missed was, you’ve guessed it, the obvious. At least two Teals have finally understood that they have scant influence due to having only a few MPs in the 150-member strong House of Representatives.

In short, the likes of Spender and Steggall have finally woken up that – unlike parties or independents in the Senate – they have virtually no political clout.

This is how the interview ended – not with a whimper but with a really big whimper:

Sally Sara: Would the party be willing to go into coalition with other parties?

Allegra Spender: I think — [Laughter]

Zali Steggall: We’re on the start line today. I welcome your, your support and your, your positive outlook. Look, we are humble, and in terms of, we’re starting. This is an invitation to Australia to have a different choice, that when we get to election 2028 there is a different choice that represents our communities on the ballot paper.

Sally Sara: Zali Steggall and Allegra Spender, thank you for coming in this morning.

What a load of absolute tosh. The Community Strong Australia [The what? – MWD Editor] wants support but it will have no non-parliamentary members. A co-non-leader reckons she is humble. In MWD’s view, Comrade Steggall has a lot to be humble about with respect to her leaderless non-party political party. Even so, the likes of Spender and Steggall are still likely to get lotsa coverage by their besties at the taxpayer funded broadcaster that is the ABC.

  • Bill Shorten flatters a gushing Sarah Ferguson

This week has been a busy week in Australian national – and international – politics. Yet ABC TV’s 7.30, which presents itself as Australia’s leading current affairs program, focused on presenter Sarah Ferguson talking for 14 minutes to two former senior politicians – Labor’s Bill Shorten and the Liberal Party’s Christopher Pyne. It was a light-hearted affair – which Comrade Ferguson introduced as “the return of our political panel” without saying precisely where it has been.

There was some – but not much – serious discussion about multiculturalism and housing. Here’s how the segment commenced with a reference to 7.30’s earlier coverage of the decision by Nine to terminate Karl Stefanovic’s contract:

Sarah Ferguson : Now it’s time for the return of our political panel, Bill Shorten and Christopher Pyne. Gentlemen, welcome and my apologies that I offer you no merch. I’ll just start with you Bill. Would you go on Karl’s show?

Bill Shorten, Vice-Chancellor, University of Canberra: I already have.

Sarah Ferguson: Oh, okay.

It wasn’t the best first-up question since 7.30’s star presenter could have found out the answer before the segment commenced. As to the reference to “merch” – as in merchandise. What was that all about? Then the former Labor Party leader threw the switch to flattery.

Bill Shorten: Cue the music, dramatic music. Listen, I feel that this debate about who Karl interviews is a little inside baseball. By that what I mean is, you know, Karl probably doesn’t mind you talking about who he interviewed, it will probably boost his podcast.

Listen, I think there is a challenge in Australia that people of the left don’t tend to go on TV shows of the right, or forums of the right, and people on the right tend to not go on TV shows of the left. And part of the problem in Australia is we just talk to our own tribes and not across tribes. And I think, Sarah, you’ve been a leader in interviewing controversial right–wing politicians yourself, haven’t you. Your Steve Bannon interview was one for the ages, I thought.

Sarah Ferguson: I’m so glad you brought that up. Let me, let me throw this to Christopher Pyne. Bill is making a serious, he is making a serious point….

As the 19th century politician Benjamin Disraeli once declared: “Everyone likes flattery; and when it comes to Royalty you should lay it on with a trowel.” The English-born (via Nigeria) Ms Ferguson is part of the taxpayer funded public broadcaster’s “royal family”. And she visibly blushed when Shorten praised her 2018 interview with the American conservative Steve Bannon as “one for the ages”.

By the way, conservative politicians do go on the ABC, when invited. However, left-of-centre politicians invariably decline to go on Sky News’ opinion programs which commence at 5 pm. Sky News’ critics refer to this as “Sky News After Dark”- even at 5 pm Australian Eastern Daylight Saving Time in late December when the sun remains high in the sky.

No one mentioned Comrade Ferguson’s recent interview with Angus Taylor during which she interrupted the Opposition Leader on 34 (non-blushing) occasions. It wasn’t one for the ages but, rather, an interview for interjection counters.

Then Christopher Pyne spoke about multiculturalism with an implied criticism of the Liberal Party leader – in a Liberal Party way. As did Bill Shorten in a Labor Party way.

These are Ellie’s (male) co-owner’s highlights of the rest of the 7.30’s political panel segment:

Christopher Pyne: I grew up going to Polish dancing lessons because one of my best friends was Gustav Chekovic who is hopefully watching tonight, Polish folk dancing –

Bill Shorten: Well they do still –

Sarah Ferguson: Finally, finally –

Bill Shorten: They do still talk about the Pyne-polka, the mazurka.

Christopher Pyne: Exactly.

Sarah Ferguson: We know, we know where we are doing the next episode, but let me just stick with you for the moment,

Clearly Shorten was pulling Pyne’s leg (as the saying goes). But the latter did not seem to notice. After all, Shorten was in Canberra and Pyne in Adelaide.

Discussion turned to hearsay. Pyne declared that there is no evidence whatsoever that the current drop in housing prices has anything to do with the Albanese government’s changes to the Capital Gains Tax and negative gearing. Shorten agreed. Really. Pyne challenged anyone to find an economist who would argue the opposite. Clearly the self-proclaimed Liberal Party “moderate” does not read the financial papers. And then there was this:

Christopher Pyne: I’m an economist. I used to be a lawyer, and I am now a politician of course, I’m now a lobbyist.

Bill Shorten: And you were a champion dancer.

Sarah Ferguson: And a fixer, you were many things.

Christopher Pyne: So many things, I can say something in Polish if you like before we finish.

Sarah Ferguson: Well, we will finish on that, we will certainly finish on that….

And, alas, they did – eventually. And then there was this:

Sarah Ferguson: I just think it’s interesting, Christopher Pyne, that you say you speak Polish, but you relentlessly mispronounce the name of our Prime Minister. It is something I find a deep puzzle.

Christopher Pyne: No no, his name is pronounced “Anthony Albanese”. Io parlo Italiano, Sarah.

Sarah Ferguson: This is week of the World Cup. Go ahead, go ahead.

Christopher Pyne: So my Polish which I was taught by Mrs Chekovic. So the people at the Polish folk dancing didn’t suspect I was actually Irish, is dzień dobry, nazywam się Christopher which means ‘Good morning my name is Christopher’. My only Polish.

Sarah Ferguson: You say that. I’ve got a whole team of people in the control room right now checking that is what you said. I’m going to be very nervous for the next 30 seconds –

Bill Shorten: Christopher you are a walking advertisement for the strength of multiculturalism, I salute you.

Christopher Pyne: Thank you. I’m glad Mrs Chekovic didn’t tell me to say something rude actually, but I have been saying that to a lot of Poles for a long time.

Bill Shorten: You are a contemporary Kosciuszko. You are just the latest in a long line of Polish culture.

Sarah Ferguson: Very good.

Christopher Pyne: Grazie mille, that is Italian Bill. That is not Polish.

Bill Shorten: Still, you are welcome.

Sarah Ferguson: I can’t do better than that. We are very much looking forward to our dance, the two of you. It is my pleasure to have you –

Bill Shorten: I lead, Chris.

Sarah Ferguson: To have you on my dance card.

Christopher Pyne: Not with folk dancing, folk dancing you are in a line.

Bill Shorten: No, but for the polka.

Sarah Ferguson: See you soon. Dziękuję. Chris, see you mate. Thanks very much indeed you two.

Christopher Pyne: Thank you.

Yes, thanks from the MWD team to the trio for the material. Clearly Shorten was pulling Pyne’s other leg (as the saying goes). He managed to flatter both Ferguson and Pyne – but it’s not clear whether either got the joke. Quite an achievement to be sure.

But was this the appropriate occasion for a political panel to engage in such banter? – at a time of a cost-of-living crisis and international tensions? And here’s another question: Can You Bear It?

  • Nick Bryant has the last word in support of The Guardian Australia’s Sarah Martin while bagging Senator Pauline Hanson

There was enormous interest in last week’s Media Watch Dog’s coverage of the question/answer exchange between Guardian Australia senior correspondent Sarah Martin and One Nation leader Pauline Hanson at the National Press Club on Wednesday 17 June. As MWD pointed out, Comrade Martin’s question received a predictable result. Let’s go to the transcript:

Sarah Martin: Senator Hanson, Sarah Martin from The Guardian. Taxpayers are paying more than $150,000 a year for your daughter, Lee Hanson, to seemingly campaign full time in Tasmania while employed as a political adviser for a New South Wales senator. Did you have any role in appointing her to that position?

Pauline Hanson: Honestly, you never give up. I’ve never seen a person that’s such a trashy journalist, you know. And what you put out all the time, you’ve got this obsession with constantly trying to pull down myself, my party, or Mrs Rinehart….

Pauline Hanson went on to say that she did not obtain for her daughter, who has run as a One Nation candidate in Tasmania, the job and defended the appointment. The exchange continued:

Sarah Martin: So, to clarify, you had no role in appointing her to that position, none whatsoever?

Pauline Hanson: I’ve given you my answer. Thank you.

MWD pointed out that the leftist Guardian’s senior correspondent’s question was born of ignorance. Quite a few political staffers live in different states from the politicians they work for. Moreover, Martin did not provide any evidence that Lee Hanson was unqualified for the position. After all, Ms Hanson, after moving to Tasmania, worked in human resources for Hydro Tasmania and the University of Tasmania. This would qualify her for employment as a political staffer in addition to her experience in One Nation politics in Tasmania.

This matter was discussed on ABC Radio National Breakfast’s Saturday Extra on 20 June. Nick Bryant (formerly of the BBC) was in the presenter’s chair and his guests were Anna Henderson (chief political correspondent of SBS World News) and Tom Switzer (a regular columnist for The Australian). At the end of the thoughtful discussion – where, for a change on the ABC, the trio did not always agree with each other – the presenter chose to editorialise. Here is what he had to say:

Nick Bryant: And just a point on Sarah Martin, the journalist from The Guardian, that was an entirely legitimate question and an entirely legitimate line of inquiry. She is not a trashy journalist, she is a journalist doing her job. With higher poll numbers comes greater scrutiny, and for more on Pauline Hanson, you can tune in tomorrow for a new series called “The Rise of One Nation”, airing on Sunday Extra with Julian Morrow. Sunday Extra, always such a great show.

Turn it up. Comrade Martin’s comment was not an “entirely legitimate” question. In that she implied that Lee Hanson was not qualified to be a One Nation political staffer – without providing any evidence to support her assertion. Yet Comrade Bryant chose to have the last word – to which there was no right-of-reply. Can You Bear It?

  • Melissa Clarke lectures Liberal Party MP Tim Wilson on manners instead of commenting on the big issues of national and international politics

Ellie’s male co-owner has always been a fan of ABC journalist Melissa Clarke – ever since she was featured on the ABC TV 7pm News bulletin finishing second – or was it third? – in a road race in southern Tasmania. Or was it northern Tasmania?

But Media Watch Dog digresses. Comrade Clarke was on the ABC TV Insiders panel last Sunday. David (“Please call me Speersy”) Speers was in the presenter’s chair. The other panellists were Greg Brown (The Australian) and Peter Hartcher (Nine’s The Age and Sydney Morning Herald).

Believe it or not [I’m likely to believe it. – MWD Editor], Comrade Clarke decided to devote her comment in the “Final Observations” segment to chastising Shadow Treasurer Tim Wilson. Here is Madame The Chastiser’s sermon about the Liberal Party’s MP for Goldstein’s (allegedly) bad behaviour as told to Insiders’ viewers:

Melissa Clarke: If you spend a bit of time on social media, you might have seen a clip of Tim Wilson and Amanda Rishworth on The Today Show that happened during the week. Tim Wilson got very animated to the point of shouting at Amanda Rishworth, waving his finger around as he was talking about Labor’s broken promises on the tax reform. It was something of an unedifying thing to watch.

He copped some criticism for it – explained it as him just being very passionate about Labor’s approach on tax reform, and defended his behaviour that way. Look, either he intended to behave that way, or he didn’t, and if we take him at his word that he was just being passionate about it, then his inability to control that emotion and behave in what would be a reasonable way seems to have evaporated one minute into a television interview. Which doesn’t speak well to emotional control.

If this was something that he decided to do because he thinks it helps sell a message, then I think that tells us that it was a performance designed to be spread on social media. Which he did then continue to spread it on social media. Whether it was a deliberate approach or just the way that it came out in his debate – neither of those outcomes speak well to his temperament in that kind of environment.

Some put-down to be sure. Reminiscent of headmistresses and headmasters of an earlier generation. It’s just that, in spite of the abundance of national and international news, the presenter of ABC Radio’s AM program Melissa Clarke chose to focus on Tim Wilson’s manners, finger pointing and shouting. Did nothing more significant happen last week? And here’s another question: Can You Bear It?

[No. Not really, now that you ask. Could it be that Ms Clarke attended but misunderstood the message from one of Nancy’s Courtesy Classes? Or did she berate Mr Wilson because he defeated her one-time ABC buddy turned Teal, Zoe Daniel in Goldstein at the May 2025 election? As reported, Comrade Daniel is likely to run again at the next election. Just a thought – or, rather, two. – MWD Editor.]

  • Nick McKim’s “fascist” allegation unchallenged by Sally Sara

Greens Senator Nick McKim was interviewed by Sally Sara on ABC Radio National Breakfast on 24 June. The following exchange took place:

Sally Sara: On another issue, yesterday we saw the Opposition Leader Angus Taylor being asked about whether he supported multiculturalism. We didn’t get a definitive answer in those exchanges. What did you think of that?

Nick McKim: Well, if you can’t articulate support for a multicultural Australia, you’ve got no business leading a serious political party in this country – and very, very disappointing that the Liberals basically look like they’re trying to outflank One Nation to the right. And what I would say to Angus Taylor is, you can’t outflank fascists to the right….

Sally Sara: On the inquiry into the NDIS changes….

There was no comeback from Sara. She did not even ask McKim to define “fascists” or “fascism” with respect to modern Australia. This is just abuse which does a disservice to victims of real fascism and Nazism. Yet Comrade Sara seemed to accept the Greens senator’s allegation. Can You Bear It?

  • Sydney Morning Herald runs sneering letter describing all One Nation supporters as cretins

In recent weeks, The Sydney Morning Herald’s Letters Page has been full of correspondence highly critical of Pauline Hanson and One Nation. And there has been much abuse – including this letter published last Monday:

Flicking through the pages of Saturday’s Herald, I was disturbed by images of Hanson on pages 14, 33, 34 and 36, as well as a cartoon likeness on page 3 of the business section. Dare I ask why Hanson and her cavalcade of cacophonous cretins are given so much oxygen?

Peter Hayes, Port Macquarie

The SMH’s Letters Editor ran a letter which not only criticised the fact that the paper had covered One Nation – even though the coverage was overwhelmingly critical – but described One Nation’s supporters as cretins. Meaning extremely stupid, foolish and insensitive. This abuse, apparently, applies to (currently) close to one third of Australian voters. Can You Bear It?

[No. Like all political parties and movements, One Nation and its leaders warrant criticism and questioning of the considered kind. But sneering at Pauline Hanson’s supporters as “cretins” and the like is counterproductive. The SMH’s Letters editor should understand this. – MWD Editor.]

  • Ross Gittins joins The Beatles in whinging about the taxman

Due to enormous popular demand, Ellie’s (male) co-owner has decided to run a regular segment called “Media Whinger of the Month”. Media Watch Dog is SO EXCITED to announce that the winner will be chosen by Ellie. The said canine is a totally deaf rescue dog who has arthritic hips – yet doesn’t whinge about her circumstances. In short, Ellie is well qualified to determine MWD’s whinger of the month.

Unlike, say, Ross Gittins, the economics editor of Nine’s Sydney Morning Herald. Just when SMH readers might have considered that its pages had reached Peak Gittins, on 17 June the paper published his column titled “Normally, I’m a friend of the taxman. But now….” (Re which see below).

As avid MWD readers will recall, on 7 February 2024, the SMH’s entire front page read: “Ross Gittins’ 50th Anniversary. Celebrating 50 years of Ross Gittins brilliance. The Herald marks a major milestone for the ‘GOAT’ [Greatest Of All Time] of Australian economics journalism. Special Coverage Pages 8-13.” Along with a large photo of the “Greatest Of All Time” economics goat.

In fact, there were more than 6 pages in the “Sydney Morning Gittins” that day. Every correspondent on the two-page Letters Page praised Ross. Plus 15 photos of the SMH’s GOAT. Including one of Gittins the Older admiring a photo of Gittins the Younger – which ran the risk of giving narcissism a bad name. Indeed, one young correspondent was reported to have described Comrade Gittins’ article as being “like scripture”. Move over Matthew, Mark, Luke and John – and make room for Ross. As MWD pointed out at the time, while Jesus Christ settled for the term Son of God (SOG) he did not accept the GOAT terminology.

Then on 6 April 2026, Gittins wrote an article in the SMH about his fave topic. Namely, Ross Gittins. Ross reported having a serious illness. While cruising up, or perhaps down, the Danube, he contracted an infection. On return to Australia, he spent 44 days in intensive care. To illustrate this, your man Gittins supplied the SMH with a selfie of a tube stuck up his nose. It is not clear how many SMH readers collapsed at the sight. However, on the morning of 6 April, readers of the SMH avoided crushed avocado toast with their coffee for fear of throwing up at the sight of Ross-With-Tube-Up-Nose

And now, as mentioned above, Comrade Gittins has again written about Gittins in the “Sydney Morning Gittins”. This is how the column commenced on 17 June:

As a believer that taxes should be higher rather than lower, I like to think of myself as a friend of the Australian Tax Office. But at present I’m finding the taxman pretty hard to like. I note that complaints to the Inspector-General of Taxation about the tax office have more than doubled. And I have my own complaint to make.

And what was Ross’ whinge about? – MWD hears avid readers cry. Well, he told readers (if readers there were) that he is “expecting a massive refund from last year’s tax return but I’ve been waiting for more than three months and heard nothing”. He wrote that “the money involved is huge”. But, in spite of the delay of a mere 3 months, Gittins asked readers whether “This is a reasonable way to treat a long-suffering taxpayer”? The answer was anticipated to be an emphatic “no” plus a “Shame, ATO, Shame” war-cry.

Turn it up. Gittins believes that “taxes should be higher rather than lower”. And yet he objects when the Australian Taxation Office appears to be checking whether Gittins’ “massive” and “huge” claim for a refund should be lower rather than higher.

Ross Gittins – Media Whinger of the Month (as chosen by Ellie).

[Talk about a self-indulgent whinger. If Comrade Gittins believes that taxes should be higher rather than lower – why has he applied for a refund from last financial year’s tax return? Could it be to replace his office attire which, for years, suggested that he had gone to the local tip on his way to work? – MWD Editor.]

For eons, Media Watch Dog has maintained the ABC is a conservative free zone devoid of viewpoint diversity. ABC management denies this. However, the powers-that-be at the taxpayer funded public broadcaster have not been able to name one conservative presenter, producer or editor of any significant program across the ABC’s television, radio or online outlets. As to viewpoint diversity, ABC has deplatformed many political conservatives and invariably runs discussions in which essentially everyone agrees with essentially everyone else in an essentially left-of-centre or leftist way. By the way, the ABC invariably describes leftists as “progressives” – in contrast to (conservative) reactionaries, it would seem. It’s a case of The Progressives (goodies) versus The Reactionaries (baddies) in ABC Think.

  • ABC Censors Sall Grover’s article on the Giggle v Tickle case

On 21 June, The Australian Online ran an article by Rachel Baxendale titled “ABC rejects Sall Grover’s opinion piece on women’s sex-based rights”. A shorter version of this was published in the print edition on 22 June. Now for some background.

On 18 May the ABC published an article by human rights law Professor Paula Gerber concerning the decision by the Full Federal Court of Australia in the Giggle for Girls Pty Ltd v Tickle [2026] FCAFC64. It essentially found that, under existing legislation, a biological man can transition to a woman and be entitled to use facilities with women who regard themselves as adult females. A not dissimilar view had been expressed by Sex Discrimination Commissioner Anna Cody on ABC News on 5 June.

The Full Federal Court found that the trans woman Roxanne Tickle could not be excluded from accessing Grover’s app Giggle for Girls which presented itself as a female-only networking outlet.

Now, the rights of trans women with respect to sports played by, or activities organised by, adult females is a matter of controversy. Ms Grover has filed an application to appeal to the High Court of Australia. Meanwhile, the ABC has thrown the switch to censorship. Here’s the tale as told by Rachel Baxendale – it is supported by documentation provided in The Australian Online.

The Grover/ABC exchange took place over 37 emails – some of which are referred to below.

On 28 May, Grover suggested to ABC editorial director Gavin Fang that she should write an article for ABC Online expressing a different view to that of Professor Gerber. Fang advised on 29 May that he had passed on Grover’s proposal “to the appropriate editorial team”.

On 8 June, Grover submitted an article to Scott Stephens, the ABC’s Religion & Ethics Online editor. It had a lively first paragraph:

Some readers will find this uncomfortable. Others will dismiss it as unkind. But here is the undeniable biological fact that underpins this entire debate: the only prerequisite to being a “trans woman” is to be male. I cannot be a trans woman, no matter how I feel, because I am female. This is not hatred; it is grammar, biology, and reality meeting in plain English. Paula Gerber and Anna Cody, in their recent contributions to the ABC, insist otherwise. They are wrong, and understanding precisely why matters more than ever.

On 9 June, Stephens responded – advising that Grover’s piece is “causing quite a few editorial headaches”.

After an exchange of emails – in which Grover contested Stephens’ position – followed. Stephens responded in some detail on 12 June. He wrote, inter alia: “I think the piece is very, very good. I’ve made a few editorial changes and am checking with a couple [of] fellow senior editors on some matters. I’ll let you know as soon as I’ve heard back, and will send you the revised version.”

Nothing much happened. So Grover wrote again to Fang at 9.24 am on 19 June. There was neither an acknowledgement nor reply. At 10.21 on 19 June, Stephens sent an email to Grover which concluded as follows:

I had expressed my gratitude to you for your constructive and open-handed engagement throughout this process, and have said the same to many colleagues. But I’m afraid our decision is not to publish your piece. Wishing you the very best, Scott

In his email, Stephens referred to “pervasive inaccuracies” and “overstatements” in Grover’s article – but did not state what the (alleged) inaccuracies or overstatements were. Convenient, eh? Consequently, Grover could not adequately defend her position.

Grover replied to Stephens on 19 June as follows:

Dear Scott,

Thank you for your email and for the time you say you invested in considering my piece. I appreciate you setting out your reasons clearly.

I note your decision not to publish. While I respect that this is your editorial judgment, I disagree with the characterisation of my piece as containing “pervasive inaccuracies.” The interpretation and application of the Sex Discrimination Act, particularly following the 2013 amendments and in light of the Giggle v Tickle judgment, is genuinely contested in legal and public debate. The Full Federal Court’s ruling on the meaning of “woman” under the Act does not settle broader questions of biology, parliamentary intention, or the scope of single-sex exemptions. There are well-documented cases of biological males accessing women’s prisons and other single-sex spaces, and these have been reported in mainstream Australian media, if not the ABC. My piece addressed these issues from the perspective of women’s sex-based rights, which is a legitimate and longstanding viewpoint.

As an opinion piece, rather than a news report, it is entitled to argue from that perspective. The concerns I raised about the erosion of single-sex spaces are not speculative, they reflect material realities that many women, including survivors of male violence, consider important. Framing these concerns as singling out transgender people for “unwarranted attention” appears to apply a different standard than the one applied to Paula Gerber’s piece. Gerber’s article presented contested interpretations as settled fact, for example, stating that the court decision “puts an end to any debate about who is a woman” and that it represents a “win” for women’s rights. It also characterised opposition to the ruling as diverting from “real problems” and equated concerns about biological sex with anti-trans rhetoric, while downplaying countervailing women’s rights arguments. That piece appears to be published without the same level of scrutiny applied to mine.

I will therefore be publishing my submitted op-eds, along with an account of this editorial process, on other platforms and publications. Your detailed explanation of the decision has made the ABC’s position on these matters very clear.

I wish you well.

Kind regards,

Sall Grover

At the end of Rachel Baxendale’s report in The Australian, the following appears:

The Australian put extensive questions to the ABC, including asking for specific editorial reasons for declining publication; which ABC staff other than Stephens had been involved in the decision; whether the ABC objected to Grover describing trans women as male, or women as adult human females; why using terms such as “biological fact”, “truth” and “material reality” was a “problem”; whether the ABC had an obligation as a matter of editorial fairness to offer Grover a right of reply to Gerber’s controversial assertions; what the “inaccuracies” were in Grover’s presentation of the SDA [Sex Discrimination Act] and Giggle v Tickle; and why Grover was never provided with Stephens’ “significant rewrite” of her draft which ostensibly addressed the “inaccuracies”.

As avid MWD readers know, the ABC Communications Department rarely communicates. This is the taxpayer funded public broadcaster’s response to The Australian’s request for information – provided by an (anonymous) ABC spokeswoman:

Sall Grover submitted this opinion column to the ABC and, as demonstrated by the extensive correspondence, we worked with her in good faith to try to publish the piece. As we expressed to her, we appreciate the way Ms Grover constructively engaged with the process through several rounds of edits. However, ultimately there remained fundamental accuracy issues in this piece, principally around its presentation and interpretation of the Sex Discrimination Act and the judgment in the Giggle v Tickle court case. These issues were set out in the correspondence with Ms Grover. These issues could not be resolved in the context of this column and meant it didn’t meet the bar for publication under the ABC’s Editorial Policies. The process was managed in the normal way by the relevant editor with advice from the Editorial Policies advisor. We welcome future pitches by Sall Grover and others who have a relevant perspective to contribute on these issues.

So there you have it. The ABC has signed up to the Right to Know Coalition – but taxpayer Sall Grover is not entitled to know what were the alleged inaccuracies and overstatements in her piece concerning the Sex Discrimination Act and the Full Federal Court decision in Giggle v Tickle. Moreover, ABC Communications declined to name the ABC staff, other than Scott Stephens, who were involved in the decision to spike Grover’s piece. And the ABC refused to provide a copy of Stephens’ rewrite to Grover’s first draft which, as it turned out, the ABC declined to publish.

Meanwhile, ABC journalists expect politicians, business figures and more besides to answer their questions. An unpleasant double-standard to be sure.

 

 

* * * *

Until Next Time.

* * * *