GERARD HENDERSON’S MEDIA WATCH DOG – ISSUE NO. 29
25 SEPTEMBER 2009
NANCY’S PICK OF THE WEEK
▪ Jim O’Brien Sandals-Up – Wants More Burqa Wearing Babes
Nancy just loves luvvies. That’s why she de-kennels by at least 6 am each (Monday to Friday) morning to catch up with the latest in The Thought of Joe O’Brien on the ABC 2 News Breakfast program. If there is a fashionable view doing the rounds, your man Joe O’Brien is likely to be giving it a run. Why, Nancy even suspects that under the News Breakfast table, in front of the camera each morning, young Mr O’Brien may be – wait for it – sandal clad. He certainly has the fashionable ideas accessories.
Last Tuesday was the morning after the (Brownlow Medal presentation) night before. Gael (call me Doctor) Jennings, chief executive of Greatconnections, was the designated commentator on the morning’s newspapers. Dr Jennings focused not on who had won the Australian Football League’s award for the fairest and best player in 2009 but, rather, on the dress sense – or lack of sense – of their wives and girlfriends. Or WAGS as – following the British experience – they have come to be known. Just when you might have thought that Dr Jennings and co-presenter Virginia Trioli would focus on frocks, Joe O’Brien stepped forward with a call for facial frocks, so to speak. Let’s go to the video tape:
Virginia Trioli: And now for a look at today’s papers, we’re joined by the chief executive officer of GreatConnections and broadcaster Dr Gael Jennings. Gael, good morning, nice to see you again.
Gael Jennings: Good Morning, lovely to see you too.
Virginia Trioli: Gael you haven’t been able to resist, have you, overnight the Brownlow Medal was handed out in Melbourne and, as with all these great sporting events, the costumes that some of the women get themselves stitched into are quite eye-popping.
Gael Jennings: Well, I thought this year was better than many in terms of the lack of flesh on display. You could say that with the obvious example – sorry, obvious exception – of Geoffrey Edelsten’s fiancé. You probably saw that. I won’t go there. Virginia and I have actually made a pact that we’re not going to get nasty so it’s over to you. [Here the Doctor laughs and points to Mr O’Brien].
Joe O’Brien: I thought it was great to see, at the NRL awards night in Sydney, Hazem El-Masri’s wife going in a burqa.
Gael Jennings: Great
Joe O’Brien: She looked great…it looked really good. I would’ve liked to have seen someone along those lines in Melbourne last night.
Oh, how twee – especially for a bloke. It may be that the Melbourne-based Gael Jennings and Virginia Trioli were not aware how the wife of Rugby League star Hazem El-Masri had dressed at the National Rugby League Dally M Awards night in Sydney on 8 September. In any event, neither commented on Joe O’Brien’s proposals that AFL shielas should totally frock up in a burqa – that is, fully clothed with only a gap for the eyes.
For the record, Arwa El-Masri did not wear a burqa at the NRL awards. Rather, she wore a Leiela designer gown with long sleeves, a high neck and a couture veil tailored to complement the outfit with her face showing. [You have a cool couture consultant – Ed.]. Which suggests that Mr O’Brien does not know what a burqa is – even though he believes such an attire would make an important statement among AFL WAGS. Who knows, next year Joe O’Brien may express the hope that some of the AFL blokes turn up at the Brownlow Medal night fully decked out in a Dishdasha replete with sandals? What a luvvie.
THE SYCOPHANTIC SPOON AWARD – IT’S BACK
It was when watching Dr Jennings on News Breakfast that Nancy was inspired to re-launch The Sycophantic Spoon Award – which was created by Nancy’s owner over two decades ago to celebrate truly obsequious references by journalists about members of the Hawke/Keating Labor government.
ABC journalist Kerry O’Brien won this coveted prize in 1987. In fact Mr O’Brien was the joint winner – sharing the Sycophantic Spoon Award prize with himself. The judges just could not separate two of O’Brien’s paens of praise for the Hawke/Keating Labor government. Namely:
– Kerry O’Brien’s 1987 post budget comment, viz: “I am not going to be absolutely effusive in praise of Paul Keating. But you have to say that the man has got the admiration right now of the entire country.”
– Kerry O’Brien’s 1987 pre-election comment that there was virtually nothing on which the economic policies of the Hawke Government could be criticised.
[Is this the same Kerry O’Brien who does not mention on his CV that he once worked for Labor hero Gough Whitlam? Ed – see Issue 13.]
▪ Lisa Millar – Breathless In New York
Already there is a serious competition for the new/improved Sycophantic Spoon Award which will be awarded on an occasional basis.
Nancy was very impressed by Lisa Millar’s contribution on Lateline last Monday where she gushed about Kevin Rudd’s role as world-leader-who-talks-to Bank Ki-moon. As Lisa Millar told Tony Jones:
Well Kevin Rudd has a special role at this summit tomorrow, Tony, because he’s going to be facilitating or moderating one of the roundtable sessions that are being held during the day. Bank Ki-moon realises that the push for a global agreement in Copenhagen in December is deadlocked at the moment. This continuing disagreement over – between developed and developing countries over – who cuts greenhouse gas emissions and who’s going to pay for it. And he’s hoping that Kevin Rudd, as the moderator at one of those roundtable sessions, might be able to find some common ground between people….
Step forward Kevin Rudd (potential) saviour of the world – according to Lisa Millar, that is.
▪ Doctor In Awe
Alas, Ms Millar could not out-fawn Dr Jennings who, on News Breakfast, having discussed WAG’s dress sense and occasional artificial body shapes, then moved to discuss the Prime Minister. Declared the Doctor:
Gael Jennings: I hear that he’s [i.e. Kevin Rudd] really so super smart it’s quite awesome being around him.
Virginia Trioli: I’ve heard that too – particularly from other ministers who turn up to Cabinet meetings and say that they’re just awestruck by the fact that they have worked very hard, of course, to get on top of their portfolio and do their presentation – their Prime Minister is equally on top on their portfolio as they are and has a few difficult questions for them.
Gael Jennings: That would be really challenging.
Sure Kevin Rudd is smart. So are most successful prime ministers. And there is the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet – whose job is to brief the Prime Minister on the portfolio responsibilities of all ministers.
Still, many thanks to Gael Jennings in reviving the Sycophantic Spoon Award – which she wins this week.
NOT OUT – DON BRADMAN MYTH BATS ON AND ON
Evidence for the proposition that myths are more enduring than facts received a boost following the Rudd Government’s announcement that the Australian citizenship test has been revamped. Readers of MWD may recall that even Bruce Elder, the acclaimed author of the acclaimed The A-Z of Australian Facts, Myths & Legends, recently promulgated the myth that there was a question about the late Sir Donald Bradman in the inaugural citizenship test enacted by the Howard Government. The line was that the cricket fan John Howard had ensured that those wanting to become Australian citizens had to know lotsa stuff about The Don. Or something like that. In fact, Bradman was referred to in the information kit put out by the Howard Government titled Becoming an Australian Citizen (2007). That’s all. Bradman never appeared in the actual questions to be answered. See Issue 19.
But myths invariably prevail. So it came as no surprise to see how the new citizenship test was reported in the Melbourne newspapers last Friday. Here we go:
In the Herald-Sun, Ben Packham commenced his piece titled, “Don dropped for big test”, as follows:
Would-be Aussies will no longer have to become cricket buffs after The Don was yesterday retired from the nation’s citizenship test.
And this is how Yuko Narushima commenced her report in The Age:
The “Australiana Quiz” that asked for knowledge on The Don has been dumped for a citizenship test focusing on democracy and the rule of law.
It was only at the end of their respective pieces that both Packham and Narushima conceded that Don Bradman had only ever been the subject of a sample question in the Howard Government’s citizenship test – not the real thing. In fact, more is written about Sir Don in the Rudd Government’s recently released information booklet titled Australian Citizenship: Our Common Band than ever appeared in the Howard Government’s booklet. But don’t expect that such empirical evidence will override the prevailing myth.
This was evident when, last Saturday, The Age ran a piece titled “A test of values fails to measure up” written by language assessment specialist Kerry Ryan and Professor Brian Costar which criticised both the old and the new citizenship tests. But Ryan and Costar welcomed the (alleged) fact that “gone from the testable information are cricketers’ batting averages”. The fact is that no such knowledge was ever required. And there is no such reference to cricketing averages in the Howard Government’s booklet. It seems that Ryan/Costar just invented this story for effect. [Why doesn’t the “Guardian on the Yarra” employ a fact-checker for articles like this? Ed].
BEWARE BRUCE’S PICK
While on the topic of Sydney Morning Herald book reviewer Bruce Elder, MWD was fascinated by his choice last Saturday for “Pick Of The Week”. Mr Elder chose the book by one-time New South Wales copper Tim Priest titled Enemies of the State (New Holland, 2007).
Bruce Elder commenced his short review by commenting on the author:
The former NSW policeman Tim Priest has promoted himself as a truth teller in a world of liars and deceivers. His technique, common to all tabloid forms of media, is to play on public fears and perceptions without ever backing his claims with verifiable empiric evidence.
The reviewer then called the author “disturbingly paranoid” with an “impossibly romantic view of old-style policing” before concluding:
The problem with this book is it does not have the intellectual rigour to argue a convincing case. It is a series of emotive and often disconnected assertions and accusations, driven by the constant use of “I believe” rather than verifiable evidence.
Which makes you wonder – just what criteria determines Bruce Elder’s “Pick of the Week”.
ROBERT MACKLIN’S FACT-LITE HISTORY
At least when Gideon Haigh bags a book he does not dress it up as a pick of the week or some such. On 12 September in The Age Haigh fanged the book The Big Fella: The Rise and Rise of BHP Billiton by Peter Thompson (not the ABC identity, someone else) and Robert Macklin (who wrote a truly fawning biography of Kevin Rudd in 2007). Haigh’s review is one of the most devastating written this year. He demonstrates that the authors overlooked already published material, omitted essential facts and engaged in a “frivolous and mischievous” attempt to discredit Liberal Party founder Robert Menzies. Haigh concluded:
Here, meanwhile, is yet another Australian book where the editor seems to have been on holidays, allowing for sentences such as: “Standing atop the doppelganger, it takes no effort of the imagination to sweep away the hastily assembled impediments of the town and re-create the place in the mind’s eye as a party of European explorers passes by the base of the jagged hill set in the endless flatlands of the outback.” Then there are such bizarre constructions as “BHP’s Nietzschean strength through diversity motto”. That motto must be from Ecce Homophobia.
This, then, is an exceptionally bad book, and also a crying shame, for BHP Billiton deserves a history of the international class it has achieved as a corporation…
Gideon Haigh is one of Australia’s finest journalists with an established reputation as a contemporary historian on business. This is a fine review. Five (Nancy) Paws.
CORRESPONDENCE – ON ACADEMICS AND URINALS AND OTHER SERIOUS MATTERS
In Issue 26 and Issue 28 MWD discussed the paper written by Joshua Gans and Andrew Leigh which purported to demonstrate that there was no political bias in the Australian media, including the ABC. This surprised MWD which is of the view that many ABC and SBS journalists criticise both the Coalition and Labor from the left.
Yesterday Professor Leigh wrote to Gerard Henderson in defence of Professor Gans. Gerard Henderson replied. The correspondence is set out below:
Fax To Gerard Henderson From Andrew Leigh – 24 September 2009
Dear Mr Henderson,
I am writing to you regarding Issue 28 of your Media Watch Dog newsletter, and your discussion of Joshua Gans’ research. In that newsletter, you discuss what you describe as Professor Gans’ “research” into urinal choice.
As Professor Gans has pointed out this week, the material you have quoted was not in fact his research, but a website that he hyperlinked to from his weblog. Like your own newsletter, Professor Gans’ weblog contains plenty of items calculated to amuse and entertain, as well as to inform. The original source of the urinal analysis was a cartoonist who goes by the pseudonym xkcd.
More than the factual issue, what concerns me about this is your decision to portray Professor Gans to your readers as someone who works on pointless trivia. Having gone to his website, you most likely saw his CV, which clearly demonstrates that he is one of the nation’s leading economists, with over 100 journal articles to his name. Professor Gans has also published seven books, including some of the leading undergraduate textbooks used in economics classes in Australia. He regularly writes opinion articles for the Australian press about issues of economic policy.
Professor Gans’ research is diverse, but he is known internationally for his work on innovation policy – surely not a trivial topic. In 2007, he was awarded the inaugural Young Economist Award by the Economic Society of Australia. Professor Gans is undoubtedly one of superstars of Australian economics today, and likely for several decades to come.
The source of your disagreement with Professor Gans seems to stem from the paper on media slant that he and I have coauthored. In particular, you seem concerned by our use of mathematics to express our methodology. One can reasonably disagree over this point (which perhaps goes back to the Snow-Leavis debate over the extent to which scientific work ought to be comprehensible to generalists). Indeed, as you might have seen from Paul Krugman’s recent article in the New York Times Magazine, there is debate within economics itself about our use of mathematics.
But in a small country like Australia, I would hope that it is possible to disagree without being disagreeable. Ad hominem attacks not only cheapen the debate; they also distract from the bigger and more interesting questions. It is easier to deride one’s critics as fools than to admit that they are thoughtful and intelligent people who have ended up with the opposite view from our own (Question Time suffers from a little of this too, I think).
As I’m sure you are aware, those like yourself who lead public debate not only influence the issues of the day. You also shape how the next generation come to view politics and public policy: whether they view it as a personality stoush, or a larger debate about the nation’s future. A little wit can help make the big issues bearable, but it is easy to overstep the line between an amusing jab and demeaning a person’s entire career.
I hope you might consider extending an apology to Professor Gans, and giving your readers a broader sense of the quality and breadth of his academic contribution.
Sincerely,
Andrew Leigh
Email To Andrew Leigh From Gerard Henderson – 24 September 2009
Dear Professor Leigh
I refer to your fax dated 24 September 2009 – which I received this morning – concerning the coverage of Joshua Gans’ research in the recent issues of Media Watch Dog. I have no record of receiving an email, fax or letter from Professor Gans himself on this matter. I assume that you are writing on his behalf.
The Sydney Institute has a record of encouraging debate and discussion on our platforms and in our publications. I am willing to run a letter from you – or Joshua Gans – in MWD. For tomorrow’s edition, I would need copy by 9 am on Friday 24 September.
However, I do not intend to adopt your suggestion and apologise to Professor Gans – for the simple reason that I have nothing to apologise about.
In MWD Issue 26 (4 September 2006), I criticised the paper you co-authored with Professor Gans titled How Partisan is the Press? Multiple Measures of Media Slant. I did so because I believe that it is seriously flawed – not merely because of the use of mathematics to express your methodology.
My fundamental criticism of the How Partisan is the Press? paper is that it focused on public intellectuals who are cited in the media rather than on issues and policy. Any proper analysis of journalistic bias (I prefer the word “fashion”) during the Howard years should focus on how the media covered such issues as national security (including Iraq), border protection, climate change and industrial relations (i.e. WorkChoices).
Your paper rarely mentions such matters. Yet many journalists/commentators openly opposed the Howard Government on the invasion of Iraq, the non-ratification of the Kyoto Agreement, industrial relations (including waterfront) reform and national security (including the handling of the Haneef Case). Any paper on media bias in Australia during the Howard Government which does not cover such issues is intellectually shallow. That’s what I wrote in MWD and I certainly do not intend to apologise to Professor Gans or anyone else for holding this view.
Also, your focus on the coverage of politics in the lead-up to the 2004 and other elections is misplaced. It is widely known that, on the eve of the elections, editors and management work hard to ensure that coverage is as fair and balanced as possible. This is particularly the case with the ABC – where a special committee is formed for this purpose. The appropriate time to judge media bias – or fashion – is away from election campaigns. You seem unaware of this. Your paper is flawed as a result.
I am aware of Professor Gans’ distinguished career as an economist – to which you allude to in your letter. However, if he – or academic economists in general – get involved in the debate on the media, they should expect critique from those who happen to disagree with them.
As previously advised, I am willing to run an explanation in MWD as to how urinal analysis got on Professor Gans’ website. All I can say is that nothing goes on The Sydney Institute’s website without my approval as the Institute’s executive director.
The fact is that a paper titled “Optimal Number of Urinals” and signed by Joshua Gans is on Professor Gans’ website: www.economics.com.au. Moreover, Professor Gans consciously put a hyperlink on his website to the paper titled “Urinal protocol vulnerability” by xkcd. Professor Gans should have anticipated that someone would make fun of this – which is all I did in MWD.
In conclusion, if Joshua Gans intends to engage in the public debate, he should expect that he will receive criticism as well as praise. Your How Partisan is the Press? paper was praised on the ABC. Professor Gans even welcomed the fact that it was cited with approval by Jonathan Holmes on the ABC’s Media Watch program. How Partisan is the Press? was criticised in Media Watch Dog. It’s called debate.
Since you have put your letter to me on your website, I presume that you will also post my reply on your site.
Best wishes
Yours sincerely
Gerard Henderson
Email To Gerard Henderson From Andrew Leigh – 24 September 2009
Dear Mr Henderson,
Thank you for your letter. I am sorry to see that I have not persuaded you on the point of apology. I am perfectly happy for you to post the text of my letter in your newsletter. A copy is attached.
As requested, I shall likewise post your response to my weblog, which is at http://andrewleigh.com (please note that this is different from my academic website, where I post my research, which is at http://econrsss.anu.edu.au/~aleigh/).
Sincerely,
Andrew Leigh
Email to Gerard Henderson From Andrew Leigh – 25 September 2009
Dear Mr Henderson,
A small postscript to my last email. Re-reading your response, I noticed that you make the inference that I am writing on Professor Gans’ behalf. This is incorrect. The views expressed in the letter are my own, and Professor Gans did not see a copy of my letter before I faxed it to you.
Sincerely,
Andrew Leigh
Email to Andrew Leigh From Gerard Henderson – 25 September 2009
Dear Professor Leigh
Thank you for your emails of last night and early this morning. As requested, I will publish your letter in Media Watch Dog today – along with my reply.
I have not taught in universities for over three decades. I am surprised about how sensitive to criticism some academics are.
I note your statement that you did not write to me on Professor Gans’ behalf. This makes it all the more surprising that you requested that I should apologise to him. If apologies are to be entered into, Professor Gans and you might think about apologising to Australian taxpayers who happened to finance a report on media bias which had a serious design flaw in the methodology. However, I would not request this – nor expect it to happen.
If you are ever in Sydney with 30 minutes to spare give me a call and I will shout you a coffee. Perhaps we might talk about our interest in economics.
Best wishes
Gerard Henderson
Email to Gerard Henderson from Andrew Leigh – 25 September 2009
Dear Mr Henderson,
I would enjoy a coffee with you. I do not presently have plans to be in Sydney, but it’s my hometown… so hopefully I’ll be there in the next month or two.
Sincerely,
Andrew
****
Until next time.