GERARD HENDERSON’S MEDIA WATCH DOG

ISSUE – NO. 785

31 July 2026

* * * *

* * * *

THE LATEST

  • Mark Kenny confuses facts with allegations while discussing Angus Taylor

On the morning of Friday 31 July, the ABC Radio National Breakfast panel comprised presenter Sally Sara along with regular panellists Stephanie Borys (ABC), Mark (“Call me Professor”) Kenny (Australian National University) and Karen Middleton (The Monthly).

As avid Media Watch Dog readers will know, Ellie’s (male) co-owner is a huge fan of the learned professor. After all, he quit university in Adelaide and went to work for a Labor Party MP of the socialist left faction. From there it was on to the ABC followed by Fairfax Media (now Nine) and then it was a case of “Rise Professor Kenny” – all that without writing a book. Quite an achievement, when you think about it. Or even if you don’t. From the socialist left, to the conservative free zone at the ABC, to the left-of-centre Fairfax Media to….

But MWD digresses, not for the first time. The RNB discussion turned on the Independent Commission Against Corruption’s (ICAC) inquiry in NSW currently examining financial contributions to the Liberal Party.

Mark Kenny addressed the issue at some length. He mentioned that someone had claimed that Liberal Party leader Angus Taylor had promised to give money to a group of Liberal Party members. Let’s now go to the transcript:

Mark Kenny: All that Taylor has done is say that he is, that no payment has been made. He’s been very sort of limited, restricted to that particular answer, and everything else is, is more general. He thinks that answers the question, end of. I think some other people are going to take a different view and will take some interest in why it’s such a sort of a narrowly defined answer to the question. Was there a discussion? Was he asked to pay the money? All of that’s still in the dark.

In fact, Kenny has no idea what “some other people” may say. No idea whatsoever. Moreover, Mr Taylor has not been asked to appear before ICAC. But, after comments from Stephanie Borys, Kenny continued:

Mark Kenny: These are pretty nefarious, murky dealings about branch stacking, about people being employed in one capacity in Catholic Schools Association, whatever it’s called.

Karen Middleton: Allegations, yeah.

Mark Kenny: Allegations, yeah. And undertaking political organisation in that job, and raising money for you know to fund the whole operation. So it’s not the first time we’ve seen these sorts of things happening on both sides of the aisle in various places. But yeah, very worrying.

Sally Sara: Karen, another story: the prime minister’s attendance at an intimate dinner hosted by a billionaire family…

Now that was an important correction by Middleton. It would seem that the learned ANU professor, in his rush to judgement against Angus Taylor, did not concede that his references to “nefarious, murky dealings” were allegations. Not established facts. Here’s hoping Professor Kenny is not teaching law at the Australian National University.

  • Nine’s Paul Sakkal describes Judith Brett as the pre-eminent historian on the Liberal Party despite the fact that the left-of-centre Brett has not written a book on the Liberal Party

Lotsa thanks to the avid Media Watch Dog reader who drew attention to the article in Nine Media Online on 27 July by Paul Sakkal titled “Libs face fresh confusion over possible One Nation coalition”.

Now Young Mr Sakkal, who is chief political correspondent for The Age and Sydney Morning Herald, is a fine journalist – who, from time to time breaks important stories. Moreover, he is one of the few ABC TV Insiders panellists who is capable of speaking beyond the normal inbred Canberra Press Gallery talk.

However, your man Sakkal could do well to learn some more history. How else to judge his comment which appeared in his piece on 27 July concerning comments made by Liberal backbench senator Alex Antic about the possibility of there being what Mr Sakkal called a “Liberal-One Nation” alliance:

[La Trobe University’s] Emeritus Professor Judith Brett, arguably the pre-eminent historian on the Liberal Party, said Antic’s citation of Menzies’ formation of the Liberal Party to fit the current moment displayed “a complete historical misunderstanding of what it was that Menzies did”. Brett, who wrote the critically acclaimed book, Robert Menzies’ Forgotten People, said Menzies had created a nationally unified outfit out of more than a dozen state-based outfits which in some cases had different names but shared policy positions and had worked together at elections. “Now we’re talking about a party with a long and proud history of government joining with a party which had no experience, it’s one organisation, and has no well-developed policies,” Brett said.

Leaving aside Brett’s comments on the contemporary Liberal Party, it is arrant nonsense to describe her as “the pre-eminent historian of the Liberal Party” – or, indeed, to depict Brett’s book Robert Menzies’ Forgotten People (MUP, 1992) as “critically acclaimed”. Sure it was acclaimed by some – but it was also criticised by others.

For starters, MWD is not aware that Dr Brett (for a doctor she is) has written a history of the Liberal Party of Australia — acclaimed or otherwise. Sure Comrade Brett wrote a book on Menzies (the founder of the Liberal Party) that is, Robert Menzies’ Forgotten People along with Australian Liberals and the Moral Middle Class (2003). Neither work is a history of the Liberal Party at any time since its formation in 1944.

Young Mr Sakkal seems unaware that Comrade Brett is a left-of-centre academic. Indeed, she was, for a time, co-editor of the leftist Arena Magazine with Comrade Guy Rundle. As to Robert Menzies’ The Forgotten People, this is what Gerard Henderson had to say about it in his book Menzies’ Child: The Liberal Party of Australia (Allen & Unwin, 1994 – second edition HarperCollins 1998) under the sub-heading “With Freuds like these” :

Judith Brett was one of the first academics to take Menzies seriously. Sort of. The problem with her much quoted work is that she relied too heavily on the psychoanalytic teachings of Sigmund Freud. So much so that, at times, her analysis is closer to farce than to history.

The real loser in Robert Menzies’ Forgotten People is Robert’s mother, Kate, and to a lesser extent his father, James. Here goes—with a little help from Freud. According to Brett, the explanation for Menzies’ behaviour stems from the [alleged] fact that he exhibited “discomfort with his parents’ sexuality”. Not a serious condition, mind you. Rather it was just “one of the common variations of the Oedipal triangle in which the boy is for a time locked in rivalrous combat with his father for his mother’s love”. This is because of “the Oedipal desires to vanquish the father and possess the mother”. In somewhat cruder terminology, Brett is alleging that young Robert detested his old man while all the time lusting after his mum. That’s Freudian psychoanalysis for you. In this day of gender equality, it is somewhat passé and becoming increasingly so. But not, apparently, in the groves of La Trobe University.

As to the Liberal Party, writing in The Age on 17 July 1993, Judith Brett declared that “the Liberal Party in the 1990s seems doomed”. That was mere wish-fulfilment and not the kind of comment which would be expected from a considered historian. Yet, Nine newspapers’ Paul Sakkal reckons that Judith Brett is “arguably the pre-eminent authority on the Liberal Party”. Can You Bear It?

[No. Not really, now that you ask. As I recall, Gerard Henderson’s Menzies’ Child was favourably reviewed by the likes of Geoffrey Blainey, Ross Fitzgerald, Michelle Grattan, John Howard, Barry Jones, Laurie Oakes, Chris Puplick, Nicholas Way — and The Economist’s anonymous reviewer. Yet Judith Brett fanged Hendo’s Menzies’ Child in the Politics journal – concluding with this: “The book adds nothing to the knowledge about the party already available; and as it has little in the way of argument or analysis, its contribution is slight indeed.” Fair criticism? Perhaps. Except that, er, Comrade Brett did not advise readers (if readers there were) that she had been criticised in Henderson’s book. So here is my question: Can you believe this? MWD Editor]

  • ABC’s Raf Epstein talks at length about the ALP National Conference which he did not attend

Did anyone see ABC TV’s Insiders last Sunday – with David (“Please call me Speersy”) Speers back in the presenter’s chair? Greg Brown (The Australian), Raf Epstein (ABC) and Ashleigh Raper (Network 10) were the panellists.

As is his wont, Comrade Epstein spoke at length but with little substance. Let’s go to the transcript where your man Speers raised the issue of the recently concluded ALP national conference in Adelaide.

David Speers: Raf, you were the only one here who wasn’t at the conference –

Raf Epstein: [interjecting] I missed out.

David Speers: – covering the minutiae of the platform debate. So, I’m keen to hear what you think about, from an outsider’s perspective, what did it all achieve?

Raf Epstein: I think it’s a good chance to, or a good way to portray your wares, to show off, you get lots of coverage. People out there in voter-land have some sense of what they were doing. I think people also know that issues that get a lot of traction, gas tax, things like that, weren’t maybe ventilated and talked about. I don’t know if the party feels like it was a success. I know you want to get stuck into whether or not there’s enough dissent.

The one thing I did get from chatting to lots of people who are in Adelaide, and this [is a] sort of combination of my words and their words: “Labor is the party that gets shit done; all the other mobs, they’re a shit show.” So, and like so, there were variations of that from people. So, “One Nation, the Coalition, they’re a mess; sure, we don’t have the dissent we used to have, but we get stuff done.” They’re [i.e. Labor is] hoping that message gets out there.

David Speers: Colourfully put, but that is exactly what the aim was for Labor, right? –

What a load of absolute tosh. Speers threw the switch to Epstein to talk about the ALP national conference – despite the fact that he was not in attendance. Nevertheless, the ABC Melbourne Radio Mornings presenter told viewers that he chatted to lots of people in Adelaide (presumably by phone) and found that they all agreed that only Labor was fit for government because it “gets shit done”. Unlike the Coalition and One Nation which is a “shit show”.

If the somewhat loquacious Epstein is correct, then it is to be expected that the total vote, after preferences, at the next election will be Labor 100 per cent and the rest zero. How’s that for a sophisticated shit-show-based political analysis by the ABC’s Melbourne-based political expert? Can You Bear It?

[As to the somewhat less-than-elegant Epstein, the taxpayer-funded broadcaster should pay for him to attend Nancy’s Courtesy Classes. Just a thought. – MWD Editor.]

  • Going to the dogs with the ABC’s Raf Epstein on Insiders

While on the topic of Insiders, did any viewer stay awake last Sunday when the big-issue-of-the-day was discussed? Namely, the carry-over issue of Barnaby Joyce’s dog Stella. All this was covered in last week’s issue. But Speers and the team thought it important to re-tell the story of how Stella barked when Joyce was doing a live interview with ABC TV’s 7.30 program. Joyce then did a “sit-down” bark at Stella. Following which Sarah Ferguson barked at Joyce. Or something like that.

Well, Insiders decided to address the issue again last Sunday. Here’s how the segment commenced:

David Speers: Anyway, speaking of One Nation, there was no way of ignoring, no matter where you were, Barnaby Joyce and his pooch Stella. After a split second moment on 7.30, went viral.

Sarah Ferguson: Are you really comfortable with where she is taking you?

Barnaby Joyce: I, I think – sit down! Sorry, it’s a dog.

There followed comments on the issue by Tommy Vietor (an American podcaster), a British newsreader, a German newsreader, who commented on Barnaby Joyce’s “fahren aus der Haut” (Did he mean “aus der Haut fahren”?), a Turkish newsreader, a Dominican newsreader, Clare O’Neill, Matt Thistlethwaite, Aaron Violi, Teal Monique Ryan (who declared that if she “yelled at Alfie like that, he’d cry for a week”), Peter Malinauskas and so on. It is assumed that Alfie is Monique Ryan’s canine and not her partner. After which, the following exchange took place:

David Speers: Stella does look like a lovely dog as well. Look, there’s a couple of things here. What did this moment tell us? What did it reveal about? I guess not just Barnaby Joyce, but our polity and the way this just divided us between left and right, city and country. Raf?

Raf Epstein: It tells you what’s that old line: “Never act on screen with dogs or children”. Certainly tells you. Look, there’s part of it that is just viral. I found it amazing on the morning when we were talking about it on the radio. It’s like it’s a Rorschach test. Everybody sees what they want to see. I don’t know if it actually tells you anything… I didn’t interview a dog specialist myself. I know I did not. Maybe I should have. That was a lack. If you are shouting at a dog like that, I think you’re already losing. It is the case that many people may shout at their dog in that way. It is not effective and is not to be recommended.

So, there you have it. The garrulous Epstein is now an expert on canines. Can You Bear It?

[No. As I recall, on Insiders that very morning Epstein declared “I don’t yet see an organised attempt to dislodge the [Victorian] premier [Jacinta Allan]”. That was Sunday morning. Ms Allan resigned as Victorian premier on Tuesday morning after a (successful) organised attempt to dislodge her. So perhaps ABC Melbourne’s Mornings presenter knows more about dogs than Victorian politics. MWD Editor.]

  • Hugh Marks squibs making a decision on a film shown on the ABC that made a distasteful reference to Gina Rinehart

ABC managing director Hugh Marks has only been in the job for a year. But already there are signs that the ABC remains a staff collective where journalists, not management, run the joint.

There has been significant controversy over Episode 6 of Race Around the World where one of filmmaker Kate McGuinness’ characters declared that Gina Rinehart should be sodomised and murdered. This matter, which was first revealed in The Australian and on News 24’s The Bolt Report, led to requests that the ABC should apologise to Ms Rinehart.

In a response to criticism, an anonymous ABC spokesperson issued this statement to The Australian on Friday 24 July:

While contributors [to Race Around the World] are not ABC journalists, all content broadcast by the ABC is subject to the ABC’s editorial standards, policies, and review processes. In this case, the film was intended to be satirical in tone and considered to be editorially justifiable within the context of the program. We recognise that audiences may respond differently to creative content and hold a range of views about how it is presented. One of the judges critiqued the film during their assessment, and that feedback was included in the program.

This is yet more ABC denial. It is impossible to imagine that if a political conservative made a film in which a character suggested that a left-wing prominent woman should be sodomised and murdered it would be regarded by ABC management as satire.

When calls for an apology by the ABC for its Rinehart comment increased, ABC management decided to pass the matter on to the ABC Ombudsman Fiona Cameron – who is said to be independent but has an office inside the ABC’s Ultimo Headquarters and, consequently, is surrounded by the left-wing ethos that pervades the Conservative Free Zone that is the ABC.

This is a failure of leadership. Hugh Marks, as the ABC’s managing director and editor-in-chief, should determine what should – and should not – be shown on the ABC. Not an ombudsman who reports to the ABC board of which Marks is a member.

The reference that “one of the judges critiqued the film during their assessment and that feedback was included in the program” is just bureaucratic fudge. The reference is to Leigh Sales who has been praised as the judge who said that Kate McGuinness’ film contained a “nasty gag”. That’s all. But she was the only judge out of three to give Kate McGuinness a point.

Then late on Thursday 30 July, the ABC issued this statement on its Statements and Responses page :

Race Around The World contestant Kate McGuinness has asked the ABC to share the following statement on her behalf which the ABC supports:

“The sense of humour featured in each of my films on the Race Around The World program is farcical. In no way was it my intention to promote violence. My writing is cartoonish and always satirical. Unfortunately, jokes do not land with everyone. Its purpose was never to be taken literally. I apologise to anyone I’ve offended.”

The ABC Ombudsman is independently reviewing audience complaints in relation to the 12 July Race Around the World episode in accordance with the ABC’s complaints handling process. The ABC won’t be commenting further while the review is in progress.

So, there you have it. Comrade McGuinness gave a non-apology to anyone who might be affected. But the ABC did not apologise – as Mr Marks awaits the judgment of the Ombudsman who is one of his employees.

  • The ABC finally acknowledges issues with Four Corners contributor Mahmood Fazal

As Media Watch Dog readers will be aware, the ABC has withdrawn two Four Corners programs – Meth Highway (which aired in May 2023) and Cocaine Nation (which aired in April 2024). It’s a long story which will be known, in particular, to readers of The Australian and Sydney Morning Herald along with viewers of ABC Media Watch this year.

Put simply, Four Corners did what many ABC journalists are wont to do. It believed what it wanted to believe. In this case, one time bikie turned mild-mannered reporter Mahmood Fazal who maintained that he had contacts with the criminal world in Australia and the international drug trade. However, some years after the program went to air, Four Corners finally acknowledged that there were doubts about the veracity with respect to “certain sources used in both programs”. It put out a statement to this effect on 24 July.

When concerns were initially raised about the suitability of Mahmood Fazal as a source – ABC management did what it usually does. Namely it went into denial. The issue went through various layers of management until – guess what? Well, the matter was referred to ABC Ombudsman Fiona Cameron. There it remained. In the meantime, according to Linton Besser, Mahmood Fazal was “sacked”.

How about that? Shades of how ABC management has handled Race Around the World. ABC management effectively avoided making a decision for years before throwing the issue to its Ombudsman.

That’s the problem when the managing director and editor-in-chief fails to run the taxpayer-funded public broadcaster.

NEW FEATURE: INTELLECTUAL SNOBBERY PIT-STOP

There has been enormous interest expressed by Media Watch Dog readers in Ellie’s (male) co-owner’s analysis of what the Sydney Morning Herald Letters Editor regards as fit to print. Needless to say, the SMH is not responsible for the letters it receives – but it is responsible for the correspondence which it sees fit to publish.

In recent weeks this segment has been looking at correspondence chosen by the Sydney Morning Herald’s letters editor demeaning One Nation supporters by mocking their alleged low intelligence or suggesting they are crazy.

As pointed out in MWD Issue 780, the SMH says that it is willing to publish letters in support of the Coalition and One Nation – but they rarely appear. Which suggests that either political conservatives have given up reading and writing to the SMH – or their views are not regarded as worthy of publication.

The good news for avid readers is that the SMH continues to publish letters from its readers who look down on those with less education and alleged lesser intelligence. Like this letter from Derrick Mason, published in the SMH on 24 July 2026 under the heading “Sit down Barnaby”:

Barnaby Joyce may find that his dog is more worthy of trust than some of his recently acquired political colleagues (Letters, July 23). I suspect he is currently a troubled man. Frustrated by the direction of the Nationals, his embracing of One Nation seemed a good idea. Now he is in a position of having to defend a group of loonies whose ideas are a far cry from his normally pragmatic approach. Now he is exposed, with few political options other than perhaps a return to the Nationals’ fold. I suggest he should “sit down” with his dog and ponder an escape from his precarious position.

Derrick Mason, Boorowa

So, there you have it. The SMH Letters Editor chose to publish a letter describing One Nation supporters as “a group of loonies”. Which suggests that the SMH is happy to publish letters suggesting that, at the moment, around a quarter of Australian voters are lunatics. How’s that for intellectual snobbery?

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.

  • Where is Laura Tingle When You Need Her?

On the ABC TV in its Media Watch program last Monday, presenter Linton Besser spoke about the casualties arising from the appalling civil war in Sudan. He declared that “there was little coverage of this massacre on much of Australia’s main commercial television networks” and added:

It’s a sad fact, the commercial media is so crippled by revenue losses has simply decided it can no longer afford to devote the resources to the story of Sudan that audiences need to. A case study, if there’s ever been one, in what happens when the world looks away.

That’s all very well, but what about the public broadcaster? Is anyone looking away there? The ABC can fund Race Around the World, sending six filmmakers to ten nations around the world to tell their stories. But it cannot base, or send, a reporter to Africa to report the civil war in Sudan. And what about Laura Tingle – the ABC Global Affairs Editor? She appears not to have written or said anything about Sudan since taking up this role in May 2025.

Why no mention by Comrade Besser of La Tingle? MWD hears avid readers cry. Well, Comrade Tingle is one of the most influential players in the staff collective – or soviet – which effectively runs the ABC. Along with the likes of Sarah Ferguson, John Lyons, Louise Milligan and Leigh Sales. Moreover, La Tingle is the staff elected member of the ABC board.

It’s understandable why your man Besser – who MWD understands does not like conflict much – is not keen on criticising La Tingle. But surely it would be worth Media Watch analysing precisely what the taxpayer-funded public broadcaster’s Global Affairs Editor does. And why she appears to have expressed scant interest in what Besser correctly describes as “one of the bloodiest conflicts on the planet”. MWD will keep you posted.

NEW FEATURE: SOFTEST INTERVIEW OF THE MONTH

• Sally Sara gives a soft interview to ACTU president Michele O’Neil

Sometimes ABC journalists ask hard questions and sometimes they ask soft ones. Generally right-of-centre politicians get hard questions along with lots of interruptions and left-of-centre politicians get soft interviews – as avid readers know only too well. Since the ABC is a Conservative Free Zone without one conservative presenter, producer or editor for any of its prominent television, radio or online outlets.

On 28 July, ABC Radio National Breakfast presenter Sally Sara interviewed retiring ACTU president Michele O’Neil, who along with ACTU secretary Sally McManus, has announced that she is soon to step down from her position.

There were no hard questions – despite the fact that the re-regulation of Australia’s industrial relations, which the ACTU has supported during the Albanese Labor government over the past four years, has contributed to a substantial increase in costs in the construction industry – among others. And then there is the re-unionising of the Pilbara with a resultant increase in strike activity.

Ms O’Neil was asked about comments made by Sally McManus about the CFMEU in 2017. McManus supported the CFMEU’s militant action in breaking the law. McManus said: “I believe in the rule of law when the law is fair and the law is right – but when it’s unjust, I don’t think there is a moral problem in breaking it.”

This had the unintended effect of giving a green light to the CFMEU to continue its intimidation against employers and workers on construction sites. Comrade Sara did not comment on McManus’ 2017 interview – she merely asked this question. Let’s go to the transcript:

Sally Sara: Did Sally McManus get it wrong?

Michele O’Neil: You, in listening to that, and as you say, it was Sally’s first interview back in 2017. She drew a very clear distinction, and Sally, that distinction was about industrial laws. She has never, and I have never defended any criminality, any violence, any corruption, and those laws are there for a reason. And that’s why action is now being taken and has been taken over the last two years in terms of the construction industry. So I think that that distinction was very clear, and it stands today.

Sally Sara: What’s next for you, Michele O’Neil?

In other words, Sally Sara did not challenge Michele O’Neil’s defence of McManus’s one-time support for the CFMEU – which would have been appreciated by the CFMEU at the time.

Now, to be fair, Sally McManus in time did take on the CFMEU. To the extent that she had – and still has – reason to fear for her safety. But that’s not the point. Ms McManus commenced her position as head of the ACTU with an unwise comment that it was okay for individuals to break “unjust” laws – without defining what an “unjust” law is. If everyone believed that it is proper to break laws which they regard as unjust – then democratic societies would disintegrate.

Yet Sally Sara refrained from making this point to McManus’ defender in what was the softest interview of the month. In MWD’s view, that is.

DOCUMENTATION

  • The COVID Lab Leak theory is still a matter of fierce debate in the US, despite being dismissed by Paul Barry six years ago

Avid readers may recall former ABC TV Media Watch presenter Paul Barry’s fanging of Sharri Markson’s reporting on the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic. In May 2020, Barry lumped Ms Markson, who has reported on the possibility of COVID having escaped from the Wuhan Institute of Virology, in with “conspiracy theorists” who claimed the virus was a bioweapon. In May 2021, he referred to Markson’s “latest coronavirus scare story”.

At the time the fashionable view among those with left-of-centre views was that the virus was certainly the result of natural evolution, having jumped from some animal, probably a bat, to humans. Eventually it became clear that the so-called “Lab-Leak” theory was being taken seriously by some in the scientific community and by US intelligence services.

When asked by The Australian’s Sophie Elsworth if he was going to correct the record on Ms Markson’s reporting, Paul Barry said he would only do so if the Lab Leak was proven to be correct. A high bar, considering that if the virus did escape from a lab, the Chinese Communist Party government would be highly unlikely to ever release evidence to that effect.

The latest development in the Lab Leak vs Natural Emergence debate is the release of the diary entries of Dr Anthony Fauci, former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Dr Fauci was a leading US government expert during the COVID response, under both presidents Trump and Biden. His contemporaneous diary entries, which have been made publicly available by the current Trump administration, shed light on what he was thinking privately in the early days of the pandemic.

In one entry Fauci recounts convening a conference call of leading experts on 1 February 2020 to discuss the possible origins of the virus. He said, “There was not total agreement” and that only 2 of the 11 scientists on the call were convinced that the virus emerged naturally, with the others unsure of the origin.

The release of Dr Fauci’s diary entries coincided with a 29 July hearing of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. Committee Chairman Senator Rand Paul is a proponent of the Lab Leak theory and has repeatedly called for Dr Fauci’s prosecution. When called before the committee Dr Fauci repeatedly “took the fifth”, invoking the fifth amendment to the US constitution’s protection against self-incrimination and refusing to answer questions.

Dr Fauci received a broad pre-emptive pardon from President Joe Biden which covered his years of public service but would not protect him if he were found to have misled Congress more recently. Senator Paul is now pushing to charge Dr Fauci with contempt of Congress, but Dr Fauci will likely argue that given the Senator’s previous calls to prosecute him, he was within his constitutional rights to refuse to answer questions.

All of this would no doubt come as a surprise to anyone who got their news about COVID exclusively from Paul Barry, who confidently made up his mind about the origins of COVID in 2020.

MWD, which covered the COVID-19 pandemic debate in detail – including the exaggerated comments of ABC “stars” Paul Barry and Norman Swan – is willing to publish Comrade Barry if he wants to correct the record re Sharri Markson. Now we know that Dr Fauci acknowledged in his personal diary that the Lab Leak possibility was no “conspiracy theory”.

 

* * * * *

Until Next Time – Keep Morale High.

* * * * *