MWD Issue 47

GERARD HENDERSON’S MEDIA WATCH DOG – ISSUE NO. 47

29 MARCH 2010

Nancy stayed in her kennel on Friday. It was not so much that she was disturbed by last Wednesday’s Daily Telegraph headline “UFOs over Sydney”. Rather, Nancy had a number of close encounters of the canine kind on Thursday – having become obsessed with chasing unidentified Easter bunnies. Such endeavours made Media Watch Dog impossible to produce on Friday. But here is a special Easter issue.

NANCY’S PICKS OF THE WEEK

Alan Ramsey – Some Fun Intended

Wasn’t it just great to see Alan Ramsey back in the Sydney Morning Herald on Saturday 20 March? It was not so long ago that Mr Ramsey was telling Phillip Adams that he had given up reading newspapers and was devoting time to reading his own past columns and articles (See Issues 34 and 35). MWD, however, does buy newspapers and was most impressed by Grumpy Alan’s contribution to the Herald’s “State Election: One Year To Go” series.

Alan Ramsey built his career on writing about politics. But, like the late Paul Lyneham, Mr Ramsey invariably despised most of the politicians who made his professional career possible. So it was no surprise, then, that he commenced his special SMH article with the comment: “You think Kevin Rudd and Tony Abbott are the only underwhelming frantics in political life these days? Think again.”

It turns out, in Ramsey’s world view, that there are lotsa underwhelming frantics in Australian political life – including New South Wales Labor premier Kristina Keneally and Coalition Opposition leader Barry O’Farrell. Before he got around to covering the Keneally/O’Farrell conflict, Ramsey reflected on the South Australian election to be held later in the day. The South Australian Labor premier Mike Rann had faced an allegation that he had an affair with a female waitress – and Opposition leader Isobel Redmond (who was described by Ramsey as a redheaded “mother of three” and “estranged wife of an American academic”) had been in the job for only eight months.

Here’s how Alan Ramsey covered the controversy surrounding Mike Rann:

▪ Rann…was a journalist before politics got him. Now he could well be “got” by the short hairs (no pun intended) in today’s state election…

▪ The diminutive Redmond… has been campaigning the pants off (no pun intended) Rann…

▪ The best Rann can seemingly hope for is another hung parliament (no pun intended).

As it turned out, Rann Labor was returned to office with a majority of seats. There was a swing against Labor across South Australia but Labor candidates in some marginal seats held on. In other words, Mike Rann won by a short nose, he kept his pants on and the South Australian House of Assembly is not hung.

And what did Alan Ramsey say about New South Wales when he looked into his crystal ball? Here we go:

What is coming down the road, irrevocably, for NSW Labor this time, no matter what Keneally or her handlers and machine overlords might do over the coming year, is exactly the same extreme punishment, leaving nothing but NSW’s worst state result, in votes and seats, since the NSW election of 1932, as well as very little of the NSW Labor branch itself. That could only be good for what might emerge from so deserved a thrashing.

Mm, we shall see.

HOLD THE PAGE – BRUCE HAWKER CALLS IT FOR LABOR

Meanwhile the Daily Telegraph was tops for its report on the Leaders Debate on Sky News between Ms Keneally and Mr O’Farrell which took place last Friday. In their report on the O’Farrell vs Keneally contest the following day, Angela Kamper and Gemma Jones asked two experts for an opinion – namely Sydney University academic Rodney Tiffen and Bruce Hawker, who was described as a “political media commentator”. Here we go:

Political media commentator Bruce Hawker said although Mr O’Farrell looked like he was “on top of his portfolio”, Ms Keneally presented a “fresher image”. “I think she won comfortably,” Mr Hawker said.

Well, as the cliché has it – he would say that, wouldn’t he? Bruce Hawker is a Sydney based Labor Party operative who worked on Labor’s South Australia election campaign. In fact, Mr Hawker regularly takes the pro-Labor gig against Grahame Morris on such programs as the 7.30 Report, Lateline, Sky News’ PM Agenda and the ABC 702 Mornings with Deborah Cameron programs.

O’BRIEN – A SENIOR MOMENT

Bruce Hawker’s political allegiances are so well known that the ABC did not even bother to correct immediately the transcript when Kerry O’Brien introduced him on the 7.30 Report last Tuesday, following the debate between Prime Minister Rudd and Opposition leader Tony Abbott on health. Let’s go to the original transcript:

Kerry O’Brien, Presenter: So how much of today was genuine policy debate and how much was districted [sic – directed, surely. Ed.] at winning the war of the worms? I am joined now by two veteran election strategists: former chief of staff to Prime Minister John Howard, now political consultant, Grahame Morris. He’s in Canberra. And Liberal Party election consultant Bruce Hawker, who’s in Sydney.

There was a day when Mr O’Brien’s employer did immediately take his occasional howlers out of ABC transcripts. For example, the eve of the November 2007 election, supporters of Jackie Kelly (the sitting Liberal Party MP for Lindsay) were involved in the distribution of a fake election flyer designed to associate Labor with the activities of Islamic fundamentalists in Western Sydney. Covering this story on 22 November 2007, Kerry O’Brien initially referred to Jackie Kelly as “Jacqui Harvey”. Jacqui Harvey used to produce Lateline when Kerry O’Brien was the program’s presenter. On this occasion the ABC lost no time in correcting Mr O’Brien’s senior moment.

TAX PAYER FUNDED GROUP-THINK: AN UPDATE

MWD commences a series inspired by ABC chairman Maurice Newman’s speech on 11 March that there should be no such thing as an “ABC view”.

▪ Where Have All The American Conservatives Gone?

Well, at least the 7.30 Report had a discussion on the Australian health debate – which is more than can be said about how some key ABC programs handled the health debate in the United States.

▪ On Monday Lateline went to its occasional commentator on American politics – Thomas Mann, who was interviewed by Leigh Sales. Thomas Mann does not proclaim a political allegiance but those who follow his views would have little doubt that he votes for the Democratic Party and supports President Obama’s health legislation. Another American regular on Lateline is Norm Ornstein, who discussed health with Leigh Sales on 11 September 2009. He is another supporter of President Obama.

▪ On Tuesday evening, Late Night Live went to its regular commentator on American politics – Bruce Schapiro, who was interviewed by Phillip Adams. Bruce Schapiro does not disguise the fact that he is on the left in the American sense of the term and supports wide scale health reform.

▪ On Wednesday morning Radio National Breakfast went to its regular commentator on American politics – E.J. Dionne, who was interviewed by Fran Kelly. E.J. Dionne does not disguise the fact that he is a liberal in the American sense of the term – he votes for the Democratic Party, was a strong backer of Barack Obama in the US presidential election and supports the Obama administration’s health policies.

It is established that the ABC cannot find one political conservative in Australia to present any one of its influential programs or even to appear as a weekly commentator on such programs. It is now evident that the ABC also cannot find one American conservative to appear as a regular commentator on American politics on any of its key programs.

▪ Phillip Adams Is Unwell, Bea Campbell Is A Little Green – Hear All About It On LNL

Gerard Henderson has not appeared on Late Night Live this century. However, he is most grateful to receive lotsa mentions from LNL presenter Phillip Adams. Like last week.

▪ Monday 22 March. The ABC’s Man-In-Black introduces Late Night Live by talking about his favourite topic – i.e. HIMSELF. You see, Phillip Adams is unwell:

Good day gladdies and poddies. Welcome to another week of the wireless program. Almost didn’t make it. Haven’t been at all well this weekend. Strange pains. I’m heading to St Vinnies tomorrow to find out what the hell they are. But I have my belief. I think I am being poisoned – whether it’s the family, my producers or Gerard Henderson, I do not know.

▪ Tuesday 23 March. Phillip Adams opens LNL, again, by talking about Phillip Adams:

Good day gladdies and poddies. How’s your health? Are you having regular check-ups? Are you taking your vitamins? Well, that’s good. You’ve got to think about health…I should mention that, last night, health was my issue. To do the program was a NDE – or near death experience. If you’d listened, I was making allegations that I was being poisoned by person or persons unknown or Gerard Henderson. Well I went into hosie today and had it all checked out. And it isn’t; it isn’t poisoning at all. Just the early symptoms of leprosy.

▪ Wednesday 24 March. This time Phillip Adams acknowledges that he reads MWD – and, in particular, Issue 32.

Phillip Adams: Good day gladdies and poddies…Before I let Bea Campbell on tonight she’s got to pass a test…which is the GH test… Bea. Welcome back to our little wireless program. The GH test. He’s a bit grumpy with you – and with me.

Bea Campbell: You’re grumpy with me?

Phillip Adams: Year, yeah. No, I’m not grumpy –

Bea Campbell: How can this be?

Phillip Adams: I’m not grumpy with you. Gerard Henderson is and he’s always –

Bea Campbell: Oh, wow.

Phillip Adams: He’s always grumpy with me.

Bea Campbell: Is he ever not grumpy with anybody?

Phillip Adams: No, no. Be nice. Be nice.

Bea Campbell: Oh – sorry, sorry, sorry. I’m being nice.

Phillip Adams: He’s very lovable. Now, by the way, he complains: “Phillip Adams neglected to inform Late Night Live listeners last Wednesday that Beatrix Campbell has been pre-selected by the Green Party to contest the 2010 British general election against Labour’s Glenda Jackson.” Now this is clearly very bad news for Glenda Jackson. But I think you’ve gotta, you know, confess.

Bea Campbell: I’ve got to fess up. But I will, happily.

And so it went on. And on. The reference was to a comment in MWD Issue 37 that Bea Campbell had discussed British politics on LNL on 25 November 2009 without anyone mentioning that she was an endorsed candidate for the Greens in the forthcoming British general election. That’s all.

Phillip Adams went on to claim that “there was a suggestion, I think, from Gerard that you were disqualified from commenting on British politics because you were, well, involved in British politics”. Bea Campbell responded that she was recently on the BBC Any Questions program and added: “If Any Questions can have me, surely you can too.”

This, of course, was not the point. The point was that LNL’s regular leftist commentator on British politics is running as a Greens candidate but neither she nor Mr Adams declared this. When Dr Campbell appeared on Any Questions, her political candidacy was stated up front and she was introduced as “the Green Party’s parliamentary candidate for Hampstead and Kilburn as well as an award-winning writer and broadcaster”.

Again it’s all a matter of ABC group-think. LNL has a leftist regular commentator on Britain (Bea Campbell) and a leftist regular commentator on the US (Bruce Schapiro). Once again, no regular conservative commentators can be found on the taxpayer funded public broadcaster.

AND NOW – A BARK FROM COCKER OF KILLARA: OR COCKER GOES THE PUNCH

A MWD reader has sent the following note from Killara regarding Channel 9’s worm in the Rudd/Abbott debate and how the worm was reported on the ABC TV News on Tuesday 22 March.

Nancy’s friend Cocker of Killara has just dug up the whole backyard trying to find a worm that behaves like Channel 9’s when there’s a political debate on. Everywhere he scratched, they all turned down. Defeated, Cocker has retreated panting to the kennel.  But still fuming about the stupidity of the ABC in giving credibility to the worm in its news broadcasts of Tuesday’s health policy debate in the National Press Club. Its Canberra correspondent, fresh from a stint in Washington, where the politicians know how to play politics and the reporters are intelligently sceptical, ought to have known better.

Even the most biased observer of the Channel 9 broadcast could not escape noticing that the “worm” turned up or down (as the case may be) the moment Kevin Rudd or Tony Abbott opened his mouth.  Obviously it was reflecting popularity, personal belief, coiffure or some factor other than debating points. How, Cocker asked, was the Channel 9 studio audience selected?  A statistically valid sample of the Australian population?  Well that’s all right then. Cocker doesn’t like worms. He suspects they nibble his bones.

Cocker’s email arrived on early in the morning of 24 March. On Friday 26 March, Nathan Joyce posted an article on The Punch website. The 27 year old said that he had successfully applied to work the “worm” during the Rudd/Abbott debate by falsely presenting himself as a swinging voter. As Mr Joyce told readers of The Punch, he has voted Labor all his life. None more so than when working the worm during the Health Debate – whenever the Prime Minister spoke he moved the worm into total support mode. And whenever the Opposition spoke he moved the worm into total opposition. So much so his “thumb hurt afterwards”.

Well done “Sherlock Holmes” Cocker.

A BLAST FROM THE PAST

On Saturday 20 March the Herald-Sun did a profile on Peter (nee Pete) Steedman. The Herald-Sun did recognise that Mr Steedman had altered the first name from Pete to Peter. Mr Steedman does not list his age in Who’s Who in Australia. [Is Peter/Pete channeling Kerry O’Brien here? – Ed.] According to the Parliamentary Handbook, Steedman was born in December 1943 – which would make him 66. According to the Herald-Sun, he is 68 – which is probably correct.

Pete Steedman was perhaps best known as a left-wing activist at Monash and Melbourne universities in the mid-1960s. He later worked as a trade union organiser and then as a political staffer before becoming the Labor member for the Federal seat of Casey from early 1983 to late 1984. Steedman later went into the rock music industry and gained some government appointments. But it is Pete the Younger who is of interest to MWD – particularly this comment by the Herald-Sun’s Russell Robinson in his profile on Steedman in the Herald-Sun:

He [Steedman] grew up in Brunswick in a working-class family – “my old man was a Digger who came back from Syria and New Guinea pretty battered by malaria, dengue fever and a bullet wound”. His father battled the bottle, and his mother died slowly of multiple sclerosis.

All this surprised Nancy’s part-owner. He recalls Pete Steedman at Melbourne University when Farrago editor in 1967 (at aged approaching 26) living beyond the means of most other students, driving a Porsche and not bothering too much about passing subjects. Your man Pete finally graduated with a B.Ed at La Trobe University some years later. At the time the gossip at Melbourne University was that PS had been educated at Wesley College and that he was financially supported by his father who was a builder – and that parental indulgence made it possible for him to support himself in an affluent lifestyle for the time without a full-time job. Readers of the Herald-Sun would have come to a different view. But, then, MWD may be mistaken. Maybe.

HISTORY CORNER

IT’S TIME – FOR THE SCIENTISTS

Alas Margaret Simons has not got back to MWD to explain Malcolm Fraser’s “exclusive” in Malcolm Fraser: The Political Memoirs. Namely that he persuaded George H. W. Bush to ring the National Security Council in Washington DC at 7 pm (Canberra time) on 30 April 1982. Which just happened to be 5 o’clock in the morning on the same day in Washington. But MWD is patient and will let you all know just as soon as Mr Fraser or Ms Simons stumps up with the evidence. Any evidence.

Meanwhile, on 20-21 March, The Weekend Australian published an article by Malcolm Fraser and Margaret Simons where, once again, Fraser is described in the third person. The article turns primarily on whether there was a phone call at 9.55 am on 11 November 1975 in which Kerr laid down the conditions that would cover a caretaker government – which would come to office following the dismissal of the Whitlam Government.

In their article in The Weekend Australian, Fraser/Simons wrote that “nothing much turns on” this phone call. This is not what they wrote in Malcolm Fraser: The Political Memoirs. There, at page 304 they claim that “this was one of the most momentous phone calls in the history of Australian politics”. How about that?

The fact is that Kerr made a contemporaneous note of this phone call – on 16 November 1975. Fraser, whose memory has been shown to be fallible, has a note of this call – but the handwriting on the note is different from, and looks older than, the date and time on the note. It’s possible that Fraser put the time and date on this note some years after the event – and simply forgot about this. Or its possible that, on this occasion, Mr Fraser’s memory is accurate.

The best way to overcome this dispute is for Fraser to hand over his document for independent scientific examination. The same applies to Fraser’s former principal private secretary, Dale Budd, whom Fraser/Simons now report has had a photocopy of Fraser’s note in his possession since 11 November 1975. This has not been mentioned previously. Certainly Mr Budd did not come forward with this document when John Kerr contested Fraser’s original claim about the phone call as long ago as 1987. Around this time Fraser claimed that he no longer possessed a copy of this note. Once again, all this occurred close to four decades ago and memories about documents are likely to be unrealiable.

In their Weekend Australian article, Fraser/Simons state that two Liberals who were present in the room when the phone call took place – Reg Withers and Vic Garland – support Fraser’s recall. But this overlooks the fact that Bob Ellicott QC, who was also in the room, is on record as supporting Kerr’s interpretation of the phone conversation.

Kerr always believed that Fraser’s recollection pertained to their meeting at the Lodge, following the Dismissal, where Kerr laid down the conditions which would cover a caretaker government. So there is no dispute about the validity of Fraser’s document – only a dispute about when the time and date were placed on it.

Since Fraser/Simons maintain in Malcolm Fraser: The Political Memoirs that this note records one of the most important political phone calls in Australian history, it would make sense for the documents held by Mr Fraser and Mr Budd to be authenticated scientifically.

CORRESPONDENCE

All Slippered-Up, Tim Bowden Comes Out Of Retirement To Defend The ABC (Once Again).

Tim Bowden AM retired from the ABC in 1993. During his time at Aunty, he produced many leading ABC programs – including This Day Tonight and PM and his publications include such worthy tomes as 50 Years: Aunty’s Jubilee!: Celebrating 50 Years of ABC TV. This is one of MWD’s favourite works – since MWD always gives pride of place in the library to books which contain an exclamation mark in their title!!!!!

Mr Bowden is an author and documentary maker who has had his books, which are published by the ABC, advertised for free on the advertising-free public broadcaster. Tim Bowden also used to host the supercilious Backchat program which preceded the ABC TV’s Media Watch program.

Gerard Henderson tends to write on the ABC about once a year in his Sydney Morning Herald column. This invariably leads to an angry email from Tim Bowden (in retirement). Such missives are usually of the “more in sorrow than in anger” genre when, in fact, they are more in anger than in sorrow. The most recent correspondence is set out below:

Email from Tim Bowden to Gerard Henderson – 22 March 2010

[Note – this email has not been edited]

Dear Gerard,

I write more in sorrow than in anger as you have been at it again, still fulminating against the evil lefty culture of the national broadcaster, but what weasel words this time my friend – ‘fashionable group-think’. George Orwell eat your heart out.

Look, Media Watch was not ever designed to be an ‘on one hand, on the other’ style of program. If it was, it would not be worth a spurt of goats piss. No, it is unashamedly critical of the media, and that includes the ABC, Gerard, although I am sure you find it inconvenient to acknowledge that.  There has to be room for a program like that, or at least there ought to be. If Media Watch gets it wrong, it ‘fesses up, and says so later. But it doesn’t often get it wrong I may say.

I must say I agree with you about Maurice Newman being a good Chairman, despite his loopy views on climate change. Talking of loopiness, the ABC has done well to survive the barking mad trio of Janet Albrechtsen, Len Brunton from the ludicrous Institute of Public Affairs in Melbourne, and the remaining Keith Windschuttle seeing out his term. What a loss he will be. As if Alston wasn’t the worst ever Minister to be responsible for the ABC – he hated the place with a venom that puts even yours into perspective Gerard – the appalling Helen Coonan then inflicted those three turkeys on the ABC Board. At least it stopped Albrechtsen from spitting venom about the national broadcaster in her column in the Australian while she was there. With friends like that, who needs enemas?

Oh, and by the way I thought it ironic that in the same issue of the SMH in which you beat your tired old drum yet again, there was a story confirming that the ABC-TV was the most trusted media outlet in Australia – as it has always been.

Give us all a break Gerard, and put your drum kit away on your favourite furphy.

I hope I live long enough to see it.

Sincerely

Tim Bowden

* * * *

Email from Gerard Henderson to Tim Bowden 25 March 2010

Dear Tim

I refer to your email of 22 March 2010 in response to my Sydney Morning Herald column of 16 March 2010 on the ABC.

It was most noble of you to take time out from your retirement at Pacific Palms to defend the public broadcaster. However, I would have thought that the ABC could handle its own defence. The public broadcaster has a large communications department and the ABC managing director’s office appears to be well staffed.

When you last wrote to me – on 2 June 2009 – you described me as “obsessive”, “manic”, “tedious”, “somewhat delusional”, “paranoid” and “boring”. Oh, yes – you also asserted that I took part in “un-intellectual” pursuits, whatever that might mean. In this email you asserted that I had lost my weekly slot on the RN Breakfast program in late 2007 because of my “droning Mogadon-style delivery”. Yet a few years earlier you wrote to me as follows: “I listen to your broadcasts, and read your articles, and often find your points of view stimulating and thought provoking” (your email of 27 June 2004 refers).

It seems that all those years at Pacific Palms must have given you a hyperbole-boost which leads, on occasions, to a certain inconsistency.

In view of the trouble you have gone to defending the ABC on this occasion, I make the following responses:

▪ Your defence of the ABC Media Watch program overlooks the fact that in 21 years it has had seven presenters – all of whom were on the left. I would have thought that, in over two decades, the ABC might have been able to find at least one Media Watch presenter who was not on the left. Just one. This is in spite of the fact that former Media Watch presenter David Marr declared in September 2004 that journalism is a “soft leftie kind of culture” and advised anyone who did “not come out of this world” to “find another job”. It seems that Mr Marr’s advice has had an impact on the ABC.

▪ You claim that “if Media Watch gets it wrong, it ’fesses up, and says so later”. This is nonsense. For example, this is how Media Watch responded to an error it made about me concerning my interpretation of a decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria about a terrorist trial. An anonymous Media Watch researcher wrote a report for Media Watch’s executive producer (then Peter McEvoy). McEvoy sent this document to the head of the Audience & Consumer Affairs Department (Kirstin McLiesh) who issued the Media Watch draft in her own name as her allegedly independent finding on this matter in complete support of Media Watch. In time, the document was even signed-off by ABC managing director (Mark Scott).

As far as I am aware, no one in the system – from the anonymous Media Watch researcher to the ABC managing director – had legal qualifications. They all just defended the original Media Watch comment made by its presenter (Monica Attard). For the record, I do have legal qualifications. No one at the ABC has ever responded to my critique of the way in which this matter was handled. Moreover, the ABC has refused to state who wrote the original draft – despite Mr Scott signing the ABC up to the Right To Know Coalition.

▪ Your emotion level obviously remains high. You claim that Janet Albrechtsen, Len Brunton and Keith Windschuttle are “barking mad” and refer to the “appalling Helen Coonan”. You also describe the Institute of Public Affairs as “ludicrous”. This suggests that all your years at the ABC did not teach you that there is a difference between abuse and argument.

For the record, I publicly opposed Dr Albrechtsen’s appointment to the ABC Board because I do not believe that the ABC Board runs the ABC and, consequently, I could not work out what the Howard Government was on about in this instance. Moreover, I hold the view that John Howard’s ABC board appointments gave the impression that he was doing something to make the ABC more pluralistic – when, in fact, Mr Howard did nothing. The fact is that the Howard Government had no rational policy on the ABC.

In conclusion, I note that you seem to believe that ABC personnel should criticise all and sundry but that no one should criticise the ABC – except, it seems, you yourself (I refer to our recent letter to the Sydney Morning Herald concerning the ABC’s policy on documentary making.)

I will not take up your suggestion that I should shut up about the ABC. So, I expect that you will continue to emerge from your comfortable (taxpayer subsidised) retirement and send me the odd angry email or two. I note that you never write to me when I refer favourably to ABC programs or accurately cite material carried on the public broadcaster.

Best wishes. Keep having fun in Pacific Palms.

Gerard Henderson

* * * *

Until after Easter.