GERARD HENDERSON’S MEDIA WATCH DOG

ISSUE – NO. 788

21 August 2026

* * * *

* * * *

The Latest: ABC Israel Coverage Lacks Viewpoint Diversity

Try this for the latest example of the lack of viewpoint diversity. Look no further than how the case of the late Zomi Frankcom, who was killed by the Israeli Defence Forces while working for the World Central Kitchen in Gaza, has been covered.

This is a controversial issue. The Australian government believes that some members of the IDF should be put on criminal charges. The Israeli government maintains that this was fog-of-war error, following which several IDF members were disciplined.

On Thursday 20 August, Radio National Breakfast presenter Sally Sara interviewed Chris Sidoti on the issue plus Greens leader Larissa Waters. Both are Israel antagonists. Labor frontbencher Julian Hill was also interviewed. Then on Friday 21 August, Labor minister Mark Butler was interviewed along with Medecins Sans Frontieres’ Tom Ross. All received soft interviews re the IDF.

Finally, on 20 August after 8 am, RN Breakfast interviewed Dr Hillel Newman, Israel’s ambassador to Australia, who was subjected to a confrontational interview with Sara. He performed well, stating that the relevant Israeli authorities found no criminal action was involved. The ambassador expressed his sorrow for the family of the late Ms Frankcom’s loss.

How’s that for viewpoint diversity? Five interviewees were critical of Israel, to a greater or lesser degree, and only the Israeli Ambassador to Australia was supportive of Israel.

Is the ABC really Australia’s most trusted news source?

On 19 August, Senator Sarah Henderson, the Opposition’s shadow communications minister, was interviewed by Radio National Breakfast presenter Sally Sara.

The interview took place after the ABC released a statement to the effect that it had deleted one more of the ABC TV Four Corners episodes “starring” Mahmood Fazal. As Media Watch Dog readers will be well aware, the ABC had previously withdrawn “Cocaine Nation” and “Meth Highway”. See MWD Issue 785. And now “Silent Orders” has gone down the classic proverbial public broadcaster’s plug-hole.

The problem? Well, once again, senior ABC reporters have believed what they wanted to believe. Think Louise Milligan’s coverage of the late Cardinal George Pell. Think Sarah Ferguson’s coverage of President Donald J. Trump and Russia. And more besides. And now, the shonk Mahmood Fazal.

The ABC statement reads as follows:

“The ABC has completed a review of the use of anonymous interviewees in all stories reported by Mahmood Fazal for Four Corners and Background Briefing.

Three further stories of concern have been identified: Four Corners episode `Silent Orders’, Background Briefing episode `Meet the teens at the frontline of organised crime’ and a short segment contributed by Mr Fazal in the Four Corners episode `Post Code Wars’ in which he says he visits a drug `trap house’.

The review found that in each of these cases ABC verification policies concerning the use of anonymous interviewees were not followed to a level that meets our editorial standards. Therefore, in order to ensure complete confidence in published content, we have taken the decision to remove them.

`Silent Orders’, `Meet the Teens’ and related content will be taken down from ABC platforms. The specific segment has been edited from `Post Code Wars’. Outside of this segment the episode meets our editorial standards and will remain available online with an editor’s note.

Mr Fazal ceased employment with the ABC in May 2026. The decision to remove this content is separate to the internal investigation that occurred following Mr Fazal’s appearance on an external podcast in 2025. A separate Ombudsman’s review into Four Corners episodes `Cocaine Nation’ and `Meth Highway’ is underway.

The ABC is committed to journalism of the highest standard. Maintaining the trust of Australians depends on upholding those standards and we take any concerns about our journalism seriously.”

Asked about the matter by Sally Sara, Senator Henderson had this to say:

Sarah Henderson: Sally, this is a disgraceful episode for the ABC. There are many hardworking journalists who take their craft of journalism very seriously. This has brought the ABC into disrepute. How was this man ever engaged? And when these allegations about his misconduct first arose, the ABC did nothing. Now, eventually, of course, he was terminated, but there must be other people who knew what was going on. He’s used fake sources. He’s concocted fake news. And this is the ABC’s pre-eminent current affairs program. There must be an independent investigation. I mean, Hugh Marks, who did not, was not there when he was engaged, said to me in Senate Estimates “he’s got a good story to tell”. I said, “Well, just interview him – that doesn’t mean you hire him.” What has happened to the standards at the ABC that this sort of scandal could unravel? It is just not good enough, and this is why more Australians are losing trust in the ABC.

Throwing the switch to defensiveness and denial, Comrade Sara commented – and received a blunt response. Let’s go to the transcript:

Sally Sara: The figures show it’s still the most trusted news organisation.

Sarah Henderson: Well, I’m not sure that that’s the case, Sally….

And quite so. If the ABC is Australia’s most trusted news source, how is it that it comes behind Seven and Nine Network in the evening news bulletins and behind News24 in online coverage? And how come in recent times the ABC has had to junk three episodes of Four Corners which presents as Australia’s leading public affairs program?

It would seem that Comrade Sara, like many of her colleagues, believes what she wants to believe. Namely that Australians most trust the news they least watch. Which raises the question: Can You Bear It?

Lenore Taylor wants more money spent on the NDIS

Lenore Taylor was editor of The Guardian Australia for many years. She now presents as a political journalist and author of no fixed (media) abode.

On ABC TV’s Insiders last Sunday, Comrade Taylor suggested that more taxpayer money should be allocated to the National Disability Insurance Scheme from payments currently made to Western Australia under the Goods and Services Tax (GST) arrangements. Let’s go to the transcript:

Mark Kenny: …when the PM says WA will get its fair share [of the GST], he doesn’t want to say the, other part of that sentence, which is that that means the others won’t.

David Speers: Yeah.

Mark Kenny: And that’s what they’re up in arms about, quite rightly.

David Speers: And he also says, you know, it’s not costing them. It’s coming out of the Commonwealth. Well, that’s coming out of all of our pockets.

Mark Kenny: Yeah yeah.

Lenore Taylor: Yeah, that’s money that could be going to the NDIS.

David Speers: All right. Yeah. Okay.

All right. Yeah. Okay. But what a load of absolute tosh at a time when the Commonwealth government’s gross debt is $1 trillion.

Both the Labor government and the Coalition opposition believe that the cost of the NDIS is becoming unsustainable. Hence this week’s legislative changes. But Taylor is suggesting an extra $6 billion a year should be provided to the NDIS. No one on Insiders challenged this.

Sure, Comrade Taylor has left The Guardian Australia. But The Guardian Australia has clearly not left Comrade Taylor. Can You Bear It?

Ian Dunt confuses abuse with humour

The British journalist and broadcaster Ian Dunt is the regular commentator on the United Kingdom for ABC Radio National’s Late Night Live . He is a clever leftist. The regular United States commentator on LNL is Bruce Shapiro – another clever leftist. That’s why the program is sometimes referred to as Late Night Left.

Like many clever leftists, Comrade Dunt is wont to engage in abuse. Last Tuesday, for example, he referred to The Telegraph in London as an “old, very reactionary, English newspaper, mostly read by old generals who are haunted by a history of sexual failure”. How does Dunt know about the sex lives of retired generals? And is this also true of old admirals? Moreover, if The Telegraph was only read by old generals, it would have gone out of business years ago. After all, there are not many old generals left – who may, or may not, be haunted by historical sexual failure.

And then Comrade Dunt turned his attention to Richard Tice, the deputy leader of Nigel Farage’s Reform UK party in Britain. According to Dunt, Tice is not only a “shoddy, tiny, minuscule little man”, he’s also “quite pathetic”.

This is just abuse presented as humour. Comrade Dunt should be able to do better than this. Can You Bear It?

Barrie Cassidy throws the switch to denial in declining that large sections of the media have double standards in their treatment of Anthony Albanese and Scott Morrison

As avid Media Watch Dog readers will recall, last week’s issue devoted considerable space to what Ellie’s male co-owner has called “The Two Melons Affair”. This is how the issue was discussed on a podcast starring former ABC TV Insiders presenter Barrie Cassidy and former Victorian Liberal Party operative Tony Barry which went out on 15 August. Back to Back Barries runs on the website of the proudly leftist The Guardian Australia. Comrade Cassidy is now an honorary junk professor of journalism at RMIT University in Melbourne. [Pardon. Surely you mean he is an Adjunct Professor? – MWD Editor.] Tony Barry is a former operative in the Victorian Liberal Party.

Early in the conversation, Tony Barry criticised Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s performance when interviewed by Nikki Osborne for the Bush Deep podcast, which was loaded with innuendo with reference to, er, melons. Barrie Cassidy was not so understanding. There was this exchange:

Tony Barry: But to me, the really interesting part of this is, you’d expect the female cabinet ministers to come out defending him [Prime Minister Albanese], even though they probably secretly think that was the wrong thing to do.

Barrie Cassidy: I’m sure they would prefer it hadn’t happened.

Tony Barry: Yep, but I understand why they have to defend their prime minister. What I find less understandable is a lot of commentators in the media, you know, if it was a Liberal politician or Scott Morrison, there’d be all these sort of think pieces about toxic masculinity, you know. And there’s really been very little about that sort of side of the equation. And this is one of the reasons why a lot of voters are going towards the anti-establishment parties, because they’re just sick of the establishment, whether that be politics, government, business, and media. And I think that sort of hypocrisy and double standards is not serving the media very well at all.

Barrie Cassidy: What is interesting about this, though, is the Kylie [Minogue] angle got immediate attention. This didn’t really come up for four or five weeks. Now why, if it’s so outrageous and so offensive?

By the way, the Kylie Minogue “angle” was the PM’s statement, in response to an irreverent question, that he would like to “shag” Ms Minogue for which he has apologised. At this stage Barrie Cassidy seemed to downplay the significance of the Prime Minister’s bad judgment. More importantly, the RMIT University professor (of sorts) seriously misunderstood the double standards of sections of the Australian media in treating the Labor Party prime minister much more softly than it would a Coalition prime minister. Let’s go to the transcript:

Tony Barry: So here’s my question: If it were Angus Taylor, who’s not the Prime Minister, but still a very significant office holder, if he had made these comments about melons with the gesticulation and so forth, would the same sort of level of outrage or indifference apply?

Barrie Cassidy: I don’t know whether it’d be all that interesting to the media or to the Labor Party in government if he was to say that.

Tony Barry: What about –

Barrie Cassidy: Why would they care, in government?

Tony Barry: What about Scott Morrison as prime minister if he had done that podcast and did the same sort of things about Kylie Minogue and so forth?

Barrie Cassidy: Yeah, yeah. Yeah, I think that’s a different situation. I think he would have been smashed much more than Albanese has.

Barrie Cassidy: But probably from day one. Because the outrage machine in the Labor Party is probably a little more efficient than the outrage machine within the Liberal Party.

Tony Barry: Yeah, but that’s politics, and I actually forgive the Labor sort of side of that for that, because that’s their job. What I’m less forgiving of is the media, who are very quick to slam others for this sort of behaviour, but will then, you know, make all these excuses for Albanese, or just not write about it, you know, which I think is outrageous.

Barrie Cassidy: Yeah. One thing I do want to mention is the voluntary assisted dying legislation….

Turn it up. In the face of all the evidence that, especially in the early time of the controversy, the media was far softer on Mr Albanese than it would have been on Mr Morrison (in spite of the fact that he never involved himself in a diplomatic incident following an interview with an influencer). And Comrade Cassidy’s assertion that, in government, Labor would not criticise Angus Taylor if he got into a two melons discussion with an influencer is unbelievable.

Can you imagine that, when an ABC journalist, your man Cassidy would have been so understanding with respect to such Liberal Party leaders as Tony Abbott or Scott Morrison as he is with Anthony Albanese? Not on your nelly – as the saying goes. And here’s another question. Can You Bear It?

An Insiders Moment: Not a conservative on the Insiders couch last Sunday as Comrades Mark Kenny and Lenore Taylor “star”

There was enormous interest in Media Watch Dog’s coverage last week concerning the 25th anniversary of ABC TV’s Insiders program. Lots of readers found it somewhat amusing that three of the four panellists whose past Insiders performances were highlighted on the program were, in order of appearance, Paul Kelly, Gerard Henderson and David Marr. Presenter David (“Please call me Speersy”) Speers failed to tell viewers that Kelly, Henderson and Marr were all discontinued by Insiders and replaced by others. A failure to disclose relevant information, don’t you think?

Last Sunday, Insiders was back to its primarily boring self. The panel consisted of Lenore Taylor (formerly of the leftist Guardian Australia), Mark (“I like to be called Professor”) Kenny (currently with the Australian National University) and the ABC’s national affairs correspondent Jane Norman. Not a conservative among this lot.

And what were the highlights of Insiders on 16 August? – MWD hears avid readers ask. Well, try these:

• Two weeks after what MWD calls “The Two Melons Affair” Insiders commenced with a discussion about Prime Minister Albanese’s interview with podcaster Nikki Osborne concerning the Japanese prime minister. Better late than never, perhaps – but hardly “news” – since the story was rife by Sunday 2 August when it was ignored by Insiders. As it was the following week.

• Later on, discussion turned on the performance of the Liberal Party frontbencher Senator Andrew Bragg, when addressing the National Press Club on August 12. Your man Bragg went off the reservation (to use a cliché) and discussed a number of policy issues beyond his shadow ministry portfolio as spokesperson for the Coalition on Housing, Homelessness and the Environment.

Initially discussion turned on the fact that Senator Bragg had been counselled by some of his colleagues, including Liberal Party leader Angus Taylor, for what Speersy called “freelancing” at the National Press Club.

Soon after, Comrade Professor Mark Kenny threw the switch to irony with this comment:

Mark Kenny: Well, look. First thing I’d say is it’s good to see that cancel culture is alive and well in the in the Coalition. As for sort of criticising politicians for speaking their mind, for saying interesting things, I’m just not going to do it….I think it’s good to hear some ideas. I mean, there’s nothing wrong with ideas being circulated in politics. There’s too much discipline. I think it’s one of the faults of this government. I think it’s also the fault of, of the Coalition, generally speaking. And so, having some sort of frank policy discussions. Some of these comments, of course, came up in answers rather than the speech…

What a load of absolute tosh. The idea that Angus Taylor is presiding over a “cancel culture” within the Coalition is bonkers. Senator Bragg remains on the Opposition frontbench in spite of his performance at the National Press Club – he has not been “cancelled” or demoted to the backbench.

In the Labor Party, any frontbencher who criticises the policy of a Labor government or opposition, is required to step down from his/her position. And any frontbencher or backbencher who crossed the floor would be expelled by the Labor Party. As in the recent plight of Western Australian Senator Fatima Payman.

Mark Kenny’s first job — after graduating university — was to work for a South Australian Labor Party MP who was a member of its Socialist Left faction. Comrade Kenny should know, that within the Australian Parliament, the only major party which could be described as having a “cancel culture” would be the Labor Party for which Comrade Kenny used to work. And, of course, the intolerant Greens.

[The proceeding paragraphs were based on a mishearing of Mark Kenny’s words by MWD. They are subject to a clarification that can be found in the Correspondence section of Issue 790.]

• Then there was this exchange when Kenny discussed President Donald J. Trump’s position on tariffs:

Mark Kenny: He’s, he’s [Trump’s] sort of been blocked by the [United States] Supreme Court from what he was doing before. And now he’s got this kind of excuse about, about modern slavery and suggesting that you know Australia’s supply chains rely on modern slavery in various parts, and therefore this is the justification [for imposing tariffs on Australia]. As if he cares. I mean, what a joke.

Which raises the point — How does a Trump-antagonist like Kenny know that President Trump does not care about modern slavery? Not surprisingly, Kenny provided no evidence for his assertion. The Australian economist Professor Fels told ABC TV Four Corners on 3 August that “Donald Trump is right” on modern slavery and added “I thought I’d never say that”.

• And then there was this exchange about the distribution of Goods and Services Tax by the Commonwealth to the states and territories under what is termed horizontal fiscal equalisation:

Mark Kenny:…when the PM says WA will get its fair share, he doesn’t want to say the, other part of that sentence, which is that that means the others won’t.

David Speers: Yeah.

Mark Kenny: And that’s what they’re up in arms about, quite rightly.

David Speers: And he also says, you know, it’s not costing them. It’s coming out of the Commonwealth. Well, that’s coming out of all of our pockets.

Mark Kenny: Yeah yeah.

Lenore Taylor: Yeah, that’s money that could be going to the NDIS.

David Speers: All right. Yeah. Okay.

Yeah right, Yeah okay. Turn it up. What Lenore Taylor is saying is that if Commonwealth payments to Western Australia are cut, the money should be directed to the National Disability Insurance Scheme. Spoken like a former editor of The Guardian Australia.

Currently the Albanese Labor government – with the support of the Opposition – is committed to reducing NDIS funding by around $40 billion over four years – that is about 5 per cent to 6 per cent annually. And Lenore Taylor reckons that the Commonwealth government should kick in $6 billion a year to the NDIS. Despite that it is widely accepted, outside of the Greens – that the existing spending on the NDIS is unsustainable. Moreover, the scheme itself is rife with fraud.

Neither Comrade Speers, Kenny nor Norman challenged this view. It then was a matter of Zzzzzzzz.

Verily, An Insiders Moment.

The ABC, under new management, requires its journalists to contest the views of interviewees if they are inaccurate or unsupported by evidence

Since Moses was a boy, MWD has focused on the unwillingness of ABC presenters to challenge statements by left-of-centre media interviewees. This is a major problem since the ABC is devoid of conservative presenters or producers. It seems that, following criticism, the policy may have changed. On 14 August the ABC issued the following statement:

“ABC Radio South West Victoria: During an interview on 12 August 2026, Victorian Socialists candidate Hera Sheppard stated without contest that Gina Rinehart was ‘pushing for Australian workers to work for two dollars a day’. This was inaccurate. Rinehart’s previous comments referred to African workers being willing to work for less than $2 a day, in the context of Australia’s international competitiveness. An on-air correction has been issued.”

The name of the presenter – Jeremy Lee – was not mentioned. This is usual. What is unusual is that the ABC made an on-air correction. It usually only places corrections online. Also the ABC’s decision that the presenter was in error for not contesting the Victorian Socialists candidate’s statement seems to be a recent shift in handling complaints. And not before time. This segment has argued consistently that interviewers should contest erroneous comments or claims which are unsupported by evidence.

This frequently occurs when ABC presenters interview political conservatives. But not so when leftists like Comrade Sheppard are concerned. It could be that Ms Rinehart’s most recent complaint about the taxpayer-funded broadcaster has led to a permanent change. MWD will keep avid readers posted.

Antonia Senior – with a little help from David Marr – scores for her analysis of the Nazi-Soviet Pact and the likes of Kim Philby

Media Watch Dog’s Five Paws Award was inaugurated in Issue Number 26 (4 September 2009) during the time of Nancy (2004-2017). The first winner was ABC TV presenter Emma Alberici.  Ms Alberici scored for remembering the Nazi-Soviet Pact of 23 August 1939 whereby Hitler and Stalin divided Eastern Europe between Germany and the Soviet Union.  And for stating that the Nazi-Soviet Pact had effectively started the Second World War, since it was immediately followed by Germany’s invasion of Poland from the West (at a time when the Soviet Union had become an ally of Germany). Soon after, the Soviet Union invaded Poland from the East. Over the years, the late Nancy’s Five Paws Award has become one of the world’s most prestigious gongs – rating just below the Nobel Prize and the Academy Awards.

Last Wednesday on ABC Radio National Late Night Live David Marr interviewed the British journalist Antonia Senior concerning her recently released book Stalin’s Apostles: The Cambridge Five and the Making of the Soviet Empire (Hachette Book Group).

As avid MWD readers are aware, the Cambridge Five comprised five British “chaps” who spied for the totalitarian thug Josef Stalin from the late 1930s until the early 1950s. Namely, Anthony Blunt, Guy Burgess, John Cairncross, Donald Maclean and Kim Philby. Some of this lot were also domestic thugs. Comrade Maclean was a wife beater. So was Comrade Philby whom Antonia Senior believes possibly murdered his wife.

It was a first-rate interview. MWD was most interested in the segment where Ms Senior dwelt on the far Left’s little secret. Namely, the fact that left-wing leaders at the time supported the Nazi-Soviet Pact between 1939 and 1941. In other words, they backed Adolf Hitler against Winston Churchill and, yes, Robert Menzies. Let’s go to the Marr/Senior interview where this matter was discussed:

David Marr: Do you think that the attitude of the authorities would have been different if these five men were spying for the enemy instead of spying for an ally?

Antonia Senior: I think it might have been slightly different in the sense that, during the war and afterwards, The Five were always able to use this slight wrinkle in terms of motivation to justify their actions. Okay, so they can say, “But Stalin was an ally you know, we didn’t do anything particularly wrong”. But that completely ignores the fact that from 1939 to 1941, when they were enthusiastically supplying information to Stalin, he was effectively allied to Hitler.

David Marr: Of course.

Antonia Senior: It also doesn’t cover the fact that, from mid-44 onwards, we realise we’ve got a Stalin problem. And, from then onwards, he’s very much, they are supplying secrets to someone who we think we are going to be fighting a war with imminently. I mean, we know now it’s a Cold War. In the years that The Cambridge Five were active, 45 to 51, it was pretty much given that Cold War would at some point turn hot, and they were spying for Stalin.

Well said. Between mid-1939 and mid-1941 the Cambridge Five supported Hitler and Stalin. And after from the late 1930s until the early 1950s, the Cambridge Five supported the totalitarian communist regime in Moscow against Western democratic societies – including Britain.

Antonia Senior (with a little help from David Marr) – Five Paws.

Ellie’s fun fact of the week: When Paul Kelly’s End of Certainty was used as a weapon

Due to enormous reader demand, Media Watch Dog has agreed to introduce a Fun-Fact segment. Due to the heavy work load of Ellie’s co-owner – it has been decided to appoint Ellie herself to choose the winner.

In his Weekend Australian column on 15 August, Gerard Henderson wrote about the violent riot that occurred on 19 August 1996 – 30 years ago – when a group of leftists broke away from an ACTU demonstration against the recently elected Coalition government led by John Howard. The leftist rioters invaded Parliament House in what was a violent protest. Many police and Parliament House staff were injured and considerable damage done to the property.

Since this was a violent left-wing demonstration which involved an invasion of Parliament House, this incident has rarely been referred to by left wing journalists or academics who cover industrial relations and labour history.

Henderson’s article quoted from a (rare) account of the 19 August 1996 Parliament House riot which he located from a thesis written at the Australian National University by Luke Deer. It reads like an analysis of the riot from a left-wing view. A rare document indeed, which can be located online.

Titled “The Parliament House riot of 1996”, the article contains the following comment:

“Some demonstrators entered the Parliament House Shop by smashing its glass doors with a wheel brace. A number of these demonstrators broke through from the shop into the main foyer. Police then blocked access from the Shop to the foyer. In the Parliament House Shop a number of demonstrators urged others to ‘Leave everything where it is, we’re here to get into parliament.’ Nevertheless, teaspoons, tea towels and other parliamentary memorabilia were taken from the shop. One account alleges that a copy of Paul Kelly’s weighty tome, The End of Certainty, was used as a missile against police lines…. In all, some 49 protesters forced their way into the building and were arrested.”

How about that? Paul Kelly’s (weighty) The End of Certainty tome was used as a weapon by demonstrators against police. If the Australian extreme left runs out of ammunition, reinforcements are available at bookshops. For Paul Kelly’s The Twilight of Exceptionalism has just been published by Melbourne University Press. Another weighty tome, it stands at 766 pages, about the same bulk as The End of Certainty (755 pages). The two books’ heavy weight are guaranteed to break down any door. Moreover, in peaceful times, the two Kelly books can be piled on each other and stood on for a better view.

A Fun Fact surely. Chosen by Ellie.

Documentation: 7.30’s Adam Harvey produces a one-sided defence of Dr Anthony Fauci

On Monday 17 August, ABC TV’s 7.30 carried a report by Adam Harvey into the recent controversy in the United States around Dr Anthony Fauci, former director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. On 29 July, Dr Fauci was called before the US Senate and “took the fifth”, invoking his right outlined in the fifth amendment to the US constitution to not answer questions that might incriminate him.

One day before leaving office, President Biden gave Dr Fauci a broad pre-emptive pardon from prosecution for anything he may have done during his years of public service. But this would not protect him from potentially being charged if he was accused of lying to Congress more recently. Senator Rand Paul, who chairs the committee Dr Fauci appeared before, has repeatedly called for Fauci to be prosecuted and has now referred him to the US Justice Department for possible contempt of congress charges.

Republicans have also released Dr Fauci’s diary entries from the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. As well as some embarrassing entries which show Dr Fauci exulting in his newfound pandemic-driven fame, they show some inconsistencies between his public statements at the time and his private musings.

Adam Harvey’s report on 7.30 describes this as an “inquisition” of Dr Fauci, a loaded term invoking medieval religious persecutions. Harvey interviewed four people for the report – Dr Gavin Yamey of the Duke Global Health Institute, Dr Georges Benjamin of the American Public Health Association, Professor Sharon Lewin of the Doherty Institute and Amanda Vaughn, who prosecuted former Trump advisor Steve Bannon for contempt of Congress under the Biden Administration.

Dr Yamey, Dr Benjamin and Professor Lewin are all pro-Fauci, and gave glowing reports on his past work on AIDS and other diseases. Amanda Vaughn claimed that Dr Fauci is on more solid legal ground than Steve Bannon and implied that any decision by the Justice Department to prosecute Fauci would be politically motivated.

Adam Harvey did not question Ms. Vaughn on whether her own prosecution of Steve Bannon could be seen as politically motivated, nor did he mention the various charges against President Trump while he was out of office. Harvey also failed to inform the audience that the Bannon charges have been vacated by the second Trump administration.

No critics of Fauci were interviewed for the report, with only a few short clips of Congressional republicans serving to inform the audience of the case against him. Roughly the same amount of time is given to highlighting a handful of social media posts by doctors and nurses supportive of Fauci.

In short, 7.30’s handling of the Fauci controversy was yet another example of the lack of viewpoint diversity at the ABC. The lack of political conservatives among the ABC staff evidently made it impossible for 7.30 to produce anything but a totally one-sided report on this issue.

 

 

* * * * *

Until Next Time – Keep Morale High.

* * * * *