GERARD HENDERSON’S MEDIA WATCH DOG – ISSUE NO. 48
9 APRIL 2010
STOP PRESS (1)
▪ All On Board The (Taxpayer Funded) Anti-Immigration Train
It’s less than a month since ABC Chairman Maurice Newman declared that there “should be no public perception that there is such a thing as an ‘ABC view’”, railed against “group think” and called on the public broadcaster to “deliver to Australians of all points of view, quality programmes of which are challenging, unpredictable and, at times, surprising”.
So, how’s it all going? Not too well, it seems.
This morning’s “Friday Panel” on Radio National Breakfast was billed as a discussion on the politics of population by politicians and former politicians. But, once again, what occurred was a chorus rather than a debate (See Issue 44). The panel comprised Liberal Party Senator Nick Minchin who agreed with former Labor Premier of NSW Bob Carr who agreed with the former Democrats leader Dr John Coulter that Australia should constrain its population growth. Now.
There are plenty of former and present Labor and Coalition politicians who could have provided an alternative view – including the ALP’s Michael Danby and the Liberal Party’s Phillip Ruddock. But, clearly, the RN Breakfast production team only wanted to hear one point of view.
The highlight of the intellectual love-in occurred when John Coulter described those Australians who believe in a big population (presumably including Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and Western Australian Premier Colin Barnett) as racists. The RN Breakfast chorus concluded as follows:
John Coulter : And just picking up on the issue of racism, the most racist policy we can possibly pursue is this one of high immigration. Because what we’re saying to the rest of the world is “You bugger off, we’re just going to continue growing more and more and more and we don’t care what happens to the rest of you”. So it’s the high immigration people who are in fact, in effect, the most racist people.
Fran Kelly: That sounds like a great place to leave it for our next debate, John Coulter, Bob Carr and Nick Minchin, thanks a lot for joining us on Breakfast. You just never have enough time when talking about population do you.
No you don’t. With another 15 minutes, listeners could have heard another 15 minutes of panel members agreeing with each other. And so it ended with John Coulter telling all supporters of high immigration that they are the “most racist people” and Fran Kelly declaring that that’s a great place to end what she termed a “debate”.
▪ All On Board The (Taxpayer-Funded) Tobin Tax Train
Earlier on 30 March, on Late Night Live, Phillip Adams hosted a so-called discussion on the establishment of a “Tobin tax” on international currency transactions as a way of funding projects in the Third World. Phillip Adams agreed with Professor Peter Singer who agreed with Professor Ross Buckley that a Tobin tax was really and truly a great idea. No other view was heard.
All this suggests that while the ABC chairman may talk – this does not necessarily mean that any ABC types are listening.
STOP PRESS (2)
There’s, Ah, Nothing Like, The, The, Ah, Need For Plain English
What a stunning performance by Andrew Pegler on ABC 2 News Breakfast this morning. Mr Pegler used to present himself as a “plain English editor” [Of what? – Ed.] However, he is now head of an entity titled the Plain English Foundation. Well done. Mr Pegler has written speeches for Victorian Labor Premier John Brumby along with a book mocking John Howard. No surprise, then, that he is an academic who has a regular gig on ABC Radio 774 in Melbourne and writes occasionally for The-Guardian-on-the-Yarra.
This morning Andrew Pegler was busy praising the role of the Greens in the outcome of the recent Tasmanian State Election – which has seen incumbent Labor premier David Bartlett commissioned to form a government in order to test Labor’s support on the floor of the Tasmania House of Assembly. The Governor of Tasmania came to this decision after the Greens indicated that they did not favour a change of administration. Yet the Greens leader Nick McKim, so far at least, has not obtained his wish of sharing government with Labor (his first preference) or the Liberal Party (his second preference).
In spite of this, Mr Pegler was all excited on the telly this morning about the Greens, telling presenters Virginia Trioli and Joe O’Brien:
It’s…a remarkable rise of the Greens which [sic] they continue to be so powerful and, ah, effective, ah, in, in, in, Tasmania. And, yeah, it’s a good thing to see.
At this stage the gorgeous Trioli rushed in to cover for News Breakfast’s anointed news commentator for the day – suggesting that what the head of the Plain English Foundation really and truly meant to say was that it was a “good thing” that the election had been resolved. Andrew Pegler agreed with the interpretation of his own words. Yeah, sure.
While on the topic of plain English, MWD was most impressed by Andrew Pegler’s previous appearance on News Breakfast on 31 March 2010 – when he gave his considered thoughts about the future of the Australian economy – going forward, of course. Here we go:
The thing that we need to be careful of, of course, which some people out there may be familiar with is this thing called Dutch Disease which, essentially – you know, you know – when an economy becomes too reliant on a resources situation. Ah, the, the, the, the, the, the currency goes up and manufacturing and exporting and tourism tend to suffer. When the resources boom goes away, manufacturing has been decimated; we don’t have anything to go back on. So that’s just a bit of a warning – moving forward.
Thanks for that. Except that Australia is not like the Netherlands and few expect the resources boom to end in a hurry. Except, ah, Mr Pegler – it seems.
NANCY’S PICK OF THE WEEK
Tony Abbott Runs Through Sunday Age Barrier
Nancy likes a long walk. But she is not yet in triathlon mode. Even so, Nancy has become quite a follower of Opposition leader Tony Abbott, who as this issue of MWD goes on-line, is on a bike somewhere between Benalla and the Hume Weir.
In view of the Liberal Party leader’s current physical endeavours, Nancy thought it was a good idea to look back on what had been said and/or written about Mr Abbott’s decision to take part in the 226-kilometer Ironman Triathlon – which took place at Port Macquarie on Sunday 28 March 2010.
There was much media comment on this event. However, the star performer was The-Guardian-on-the-Yarra-on-Sunday, otherwise known as The Sunday Age. On Sunday 28 March The Sunday Age’s intrepid reporters Peter Munro and Josh Gordon speculated about Mr Abbott’s likely triathlon efforts in an article titled: “Is Tony Abbott a man of iron, a fool, or a freak?” The journalists went for the second option.
Here’s how Peter Munro and Josh Gordon foresaw the events of that day:
Many doubt that Mr Abbott will even finish the event – a 3.8 kilometre swim, a 180.1 kilometre ride and 42.2 kilometre run. Even the fittest risk injury and weeks of recovery.
Munro and Gordon quoted the head triathlon coach at the Victorian Institute of Sport as saying that “some people manage to do it, but there’s a massive cost at the end; some people take six to 12 months to get over it”. Munro and Gordon then opined: “A tough call in an election year.”
The Guardian-on-the-Yarra-on-Sunday ran a photo of Tony Abbott, decked out in ironman gear under the heading: “Ironman Potential Body Count.” It listed possible ailments which the Liberal Party leader could well suffer to his brain, shoulders, heart, back, legs, knees, shins, feet and toenails. [What about pecs? – Ed.] The consensus was that it would take Tony Abbott at least two weeks to recover from the various ailments he was likely to endure after finishing the triathlon if, of course, he completed the event.
Enough of the prophecies. What about the facts? Well, Tony Abbott finished the triathlon in under 14 hours and on 7 April – just ten days later – he commenced a 1000 kilometre Pollie Pedal bike ride from Melbourne to Sydney via various places. Messrs Munro and Gordon would be well advised to stay away from prophecies, of the medical kind.
A DEVINE MOMENT
The most insightful comment on the Tony Abbott-as-ironman matter came from Sydney Morning Herald columnist Miranda Devine. Writing in the Sydney Morning Herald on 2 April, divine Miranda commented:
Machiavelli would have approved of Abbott’s ironman efforts and even more of his upcoming Pollie Pedal.
Quite so. Moving backwards, Mr Machiavelli died in 1527. He was quite a forward looking bloke, obviously.
GEORGE NEGUS – LIGHTWEIGHT OF THE WEEK, AGAIN
In yet another stunning performance on SBS Dateline last Sunday, George Negus impressed MWD with his interview with Father (call me “Tom”) Tom Doyle. The issue turned on what the Dateline presenter referred to as “rampant, worldwide sexual abuse of children by Catholic priests”. What Doyle and Negus were referring to is more accurately defined as assaults on young boys by some Catholic priests and brothers based primarily in North America, Western Europe and Australasia.
During the discussion between George and Tom, the following exchange took place:
Father Tom Doyle: ….How do people react? I think a significant number of Catholics react with denial and anger because what this does is it seriously rocks the source of their spiritual security. They don’t like to hear it, but it’s true. I mean, the Catholic Church, the men in the Catholic Church, are human beings – they’re not supermen and they’re not junior gods, they’re people. And there’s a lot of serious, serious corruption that needs to be taken care of so the Church can really be what it’s supposed to be.
George Negus : You include the pontiff himself in that? Because his infallibility is now being questioned. In fact, you’re suggesting the foundations of – if you like – the whole Catholic belief system, including the existence of a pope at all, is up for scrutiny.
If George Negus knew anything about the teaching of the Catholic Church he would understand that the Pope is only regarded as “infallible” when he speaks ex cathedra – that is as head of the Catholic Church – on a matter of faith or morals. No pope in recent years has issued an infallible degree. And no one – apart from George Negus, that is – has suggested that any matter of “infallibility” is involved in how the Vatican manages matters of sexual abuse.
Dateline’s presenter seems blissfully unaware that the Catholic Church believes in Original Sin – or the imperfectability of mankind. In other words, Catholics believe that even popes are sinners – along with everyone else. By the way, the last time a pope issued an infallible statement was in 1950 – not long after the birth of George.
Earlier this year Negus showed abysmal ignorance about the relationship between Judaism and Israel (See Issue 45). Now his ignorance has extended to Catholicism. What’s next?
TONY JONES – ALL FOR JESUS (SOMETIMES)
While on the issue of Christianity, how about the following question which the ABC 1 Q&A presenter posed to Tony Abbot last Monday:
We’ve got a web question that’s come in. It’s from Brenton Anthony in Canberra: “When it comes to asylum seekers, what would Jesus do?
The powers-that-be at Q&A obviously regarded this as a you-beaut question. What a pity, then, that Mr Jones did not direct such a question to former Labor minister Graham Richardson when he appeared on the program on 29 March. Here’s how such a question might have sounded:
Graham Richardson. You were a Cabinet minister in Paul Keating’s Labor government in 1992 when mandatory detention was introduced for all asylum seekers entering Australia – including women and children. In 1994, the mid-point of the Keating Government, there were some 350 children held behind barbed wire in Australian detention centres. When it comes to asylum seekers during the time of the Keating Government, what would Jesus have done?
Alas, no such question was asked.
HISTORY CORNER
CLIVE HAMILTON TELLS A WHOPPER ABOUT JEAN-PAUL SARTRE
You’ve heard the term public intellectual. It invariably designates a leftist inclined academic type who has written a couple of books and enjoys contributing to the public debate from a taxpayer funded chair in a university or a bar stool in an inner-city pub. Most public intellectuals have never worked in politics, or business, or the public service.
There are public intellectuals (like Professor Robert Manne) and public intellectuals (like Professor Judith Brett). Then there is the public intellectual double – as in two for the price of one. This entity covers Professor Clive Hamilton who is fortunate enough to have a dual personality. There is good Clive and the somewhat evil Jacob. Both bang on about the meaning of life. It’s just that Clive the Good is merely a bore whereas Clive the Evil is a bore who happens to be an abuser of women and more besides. (For an analysis of Clive/Jacob Hamilton see Gerard Henderson’s Sydney Morning Herald article published on 29 September 2007 and The Sydney Institute Quarterly, Issue 31, September 2007).
Last Tuesday ABC 1’s Big Issues program showed the IQ2 Debate which took place at Sydney’s Recital Hall in March. The topic was “The Pursuit Of Happiness Is Making Us Miserable”. Clive (or was it Jacob?) Hamilton stepped up as the final speaker for the affirmative.
Clive/Jacob banged on about his well-known obsessions. Life’s a vale of tears. Some of us may think we’re happy but we’re not really happy. The pursuit of happiness brought on the Global Financial Crisis. Women shop too much. And so on.
Then Professor Hamilton went on to praise the French – since they have “always…questioned the meaning of superficial pursuits”. Really. Then it was time for a bit of public intellectual inner-city style mocking of the less educated. Clive/Jacob told the IQ2 Debate audience that he admired not only the French existentialist philosopher Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980) but also Paul Vautin, whom he described an Australian philosopher. The reference was to the former Queensland born Rugby League footballer and sports commentator Paul “Fatty” Vautin – whose name he deliberately mispronounced as “Voo-tan”, as if he were a French philosopher. [That’s pretty funny. – Ed.]
There was lotsa laughter among the educated set at the Sydney Recital Hall as Clive/Jacob mocked Paul Voo-tan (nee Vautin). After all, Hamilton declared, Vautin has defined happiness as “sticking it up New South Wales” (Mocking laughter). What’s more, he had recently sustained serious concussion while recording a promotion for The Footy Show (Hilarious laughter). Moreover, when discussing his near-death experience, Vautin had declared: “I had my good days, my bad days and then there’re m’worse days. I could’ve been dead.” (What could be funnier than to sit in the Recital Hall and mock a football personality who don’t speak the Queen’s English lingo?)
Clive/Jacob compared Paul Vautin the footballer with Jean-Paul Sartre the existentialist – in a mocking way, of course. Let’s go to the video tape:
Like Sartre, who fought in the French Resistance, Vautin is willing to court danger in order to put his philosophy into practice.
There followed the Clive/Jacob “joke” about Paul Vautin’s serious car accident. But, what’s this about Jean-Paul Sartre? Was he really an heroic French existentialist who fought Nazi Germany in the French Resistance? Answer – not on your nelly.
Here are some facts about Sartre, taken from two sources. Namely, David Pryce-Jones – a critic of Sartre – whose book Paris In The Third Reich: A History Of The German Occupation (Collins) was published in 1981 and Christian Delacampagne – a supporter of Sartre – whose entry on the French philosopher appears in Lawrence D. Kritzman’s edited collection The Columbia History of Twentieth Century French Thought (Columbia University Press, 2006).
▪ Sartre was mobilised in 1939 and joined the French Army. He was captured by the German Army in 1940 and spent a brief time in a German prisoner-of-war camp before being released – whereupon he returned to Paris and commenced teaching at the fashionable Lycée Condorcet.
▪ In 1941 Sartre joined a study group called Socialisme et Liberté, which distributed only a few pamphlets before being closed down by the German occupation forces. As Delacampagne has acknowledged, this was Sartre’s “sole act of resistance to the Nazi occupation, and a mostly symbolic one at that”.
▪ As Pryce-Jones has documented, Sartre’s companion Simone de Beauvoir wrote that, during the German occupation of Paris: “Politically we found ourselves reduced to a condition of total impotence.” So what did Sartre and Beauvoir do during the German occupation? Well they wrote, and drank, and took holidays in Vichy France and drank and attended Sartre’s plays and drank and so on. And neither joined the French Resistance. Sartre published his work in such collaborationist publications as Comoedia and de Beauvoir had a program on the French public broadcaster Radio-d’Etat.
By the way, Sartre’s play Huis Clos, which opened in Paris on 10 June 1944, was cleared by the Nazi German censor in Paris. As Pryce-Jones put it: “Sartre’s masterpieces had seen the light of day with the swastika seal of approval set on them by the Propaganda Abteilung.”
And yet not one voice of dissent was heard at the IQ2 Debate when Professor Hamilton (falsely) declared that Sartre had fought in the French Resistance. After the war, Sartre joined the Communist Party and, for a decade or so, became a barracker for the Stalinist communist regime in the Soviet Union. No doubt in a future IQ2 Debate Clive/Jacob Hamilton will declare that Jean-Paul Sartre fought Josef Stalin in the late 1940s and early 1950s. And, no doubt he will get away with such an historical howler – provided he can amuse the audience by mocking some retired footballer.
Clive Hamilton’s false claim about Jean-Paul Sartre remains on the ABC website. It should be deleted – for the sake of historical accuracy.
CORRESPONDENCE
On Richard Dawkins, Pope Benedict XVI or (Perhaps) Pope Pius XII
A certain Duncan Russell Miller emailed Media Watch Dog on 30 March 2010 alleging that Issue 46 contained a false claim about Dr Dawkins’ statements at the inaugural global atheist conference. On 1 April 2010 Gerard Henderson replied to Mr Miller. The entire correspondence is published below.
Email from D.R. Miller to Gerard Henderson – 30 March 2010
Dear Gerard Henderson
It was disappointing to notice your failure to correct your mistaken comments in Media Watch Dog, Issue 46 of March 19th “Richard Dawkins Nails The Pope – Pity About The Facts” .
Dawkins made it quite clear that he was well aware of the present Pope’s age during the Nazi regime and that he was referring to Pope Pius, the Pope during that period.
What a pity to have such an omission from someone who so assiduously corrects the mistakes of others.
Yours sincerely
D.R.Miller
Email from Gerard Henderson to D.R. Miller – 1 April 2010
Dear Mr Miller
I refer to your note of 30 March 2010 alleging that I have failed to correct a “mistake” in Media Watch Dog Issue 46 – in the section titled “Richard Dawkins Nails The Pope: Pity About The Facts”.
You claim that, at the Melbourne atheist conference, Richard Dawkins “made it quite clear that he was well aware of the present Pope’s age during the Nazi regime and that he was referring to Pope Pius, the Pope during that period”.
This is not how Dr Dawkins’ comment was reported at the time.
▪ In The Age on 15 March 2010, the newspaper’s religious editor Barney Zwartz wrote:
Mary MacKillop’s canonisation by ”Pope Nazi” was ”pure Monty Python”, the world’s most famous atheist told the world’s first global atheist conference in Melbourne yesterday.
After a public lecture, biologist Richard Dawkins was asked whether ”credulous” media reporting and Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s welcoming of last month’s canonisation of Mary MacKillop as Australia’s first Catholic saint were discouraging. Professor Dawkins replied that he did find it discouraging.
“The whole idea of creating saints, it’s pure Monty Python,” he said. “They have to clock up two miracles. These are people we are supposed to take seriously.
“When I’m accused, ‘Why are you going after easy targets, the fundamentalist nutbags, why don’t you take on the real theologians?’, well, the real theologians like Pope Nazi believe in miracles.”
Pope Benedict XVI, formerly Joseph Ratzinger, was conscripted into Hitler Youth, as were all German boys, when he turned 14.
“It’s just surreal and completely gives the lie to the claim that the sophisticated theologians should look down on fundamentalist wingnuts. They are all the same.”
▪ In the Sydney Morning Herald on 15 March 2010, Jacqueline Maley wrote:
Dr Dawkins said he was often criticised for attacking easy targets such as Christian fundamentalists instead of serious theologians such as “Pope Nazi”, a presumed reference to Pope Benedict.
It is clear from these reports that Richard Dawkins was referring to Benedict XVI when he used the term “Pope Nazi”. As you should be aware, Joseph Ratzinger was a well regarded theologian before he became pope – this is not the case with most pontiffs. Clearly Dr Dawkins was referring to Benedict XVI when he used the term “Pope Nazi”, whom he described as a “real theologian”. Moreover, it was Benedict XVI who announced Mary MacKillop’s pending canonisation.
You seem ignorant about many details of the history of Europe in the 20th Century. In your email, you refer to “Pope Pius, the Pope during that period”. The reference is to the period of Nazi dictatorship in Germany.
In fact, there were two popes named Pius during this period – Pope Pius XI (6 February 1922 – 10 February 1939)) and Pope Pius XII (2 March 1939 – 9 October 1958 ). Neither was regarded as a leading theologian – so Richard Dawkins could not have been referring to either of them when he used the term “Pope Nazi”.
In any event, it is ahistorical to identify any pontiff with the Nazi regime. For the record, the leaders of Nazi Germany and Stalin’s communist dictatorship in the Soviet Union were secular atheists. That’s why the Pope condemned Nazism and communism in two encyclicals issued in 1937 – Mit Brennender Sorge, 14 March 1937, on Nazism and Divini Redemptoris, 19 March 1937, on communism. Pius XI was the pope when these encyclicals were issued. Cardinal Eugenio Pacelli, who was the Vatican’s Secretary of State in 1937, would have approved both encyclicals. Pacelli became Pope Pius XII after Pius XI’s death.
It is true that Pius XII was described – unfairly – as “Hitler’s Pope”. The reference is to the book by John Cornwell. Later Cornwell acknowledged that he had no evidence to support this allegation and withdrew the assertion.
In conclusion, I should point out that Dr Dawkins is a well regarded scientist with a background in zoology. He is not a historian and has no expertise of any kind when discussing Nazi Germany or the policies of the Holy See in the 1930s or 1940s.
My (gratuitous) advice is that you should do more research before alleging that others have made mistakes.
Best wishes
Gerard Henderson
* * * * *
Until next time