GERARD HENDERSON’S MEDIA WATCH DOG

ISSUE – NO. 792

18 September 2026

* * * *

* * * *

The Latest

  • ABC rejects ACMA’s criticism of its lack of viewpoint diversity.

On the morning of Thursday 17 September the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) issued a statement titled “Four Corners breaches impartial requirements in War Memorial story”. The relevant part of the statement read as follows:

“The ACMA investigation found that the 10 March 2025 Four Corners episode ‘Sacrifice’ unduly favoured one perspective through its presentation of aspects of the Memorial’s redevelopment project. This included findings of an Australian National Audit Office report, analysis of the redevelopment consultation process and the selection and treatment of interviewees.”

Avid Media Watch Dog readers may recall that on 14 March 2025 Gerard Henderson previewed his inaugural appearance on News24’s The Media Show – including this reference to the Four Corners’ “Sacrifice” program…

“On Monday 10 March Four Corners did a critique of the War Memorial in Canberra presented by Mark Willacy. He interviewed people responsible for running the War Memorial – its chair Kim Beazley, its managing director Matt Anderson and a War Memorial Council member. Four Corners then rolled out 10 critics of the War Memorial – particularly with respect to its redevelopment and the fact that it receives funds from the armaments industry. Without acknowledging that without the armaments industry Australia would be defenceless.

MWD cited the comments on “Sacrifice” :

Dr Sue Wareham: Redevelopment is, to put it bluntly, an abomination.

Peter Stanley: Now, I think that’s dirty money. It should not be accepting money from merchants of death.

The panel next to the [Afghanistan] display is to me, the most mealy-mouthed piece of writing the Memorial’s ever put up. It was completely inadequate because it didn’t explain the moral vacuum that those soldiers had fallen into.

And Henderson said this:

“Mark Willacy interviewed a member of the Greens but no one from the Coalition. The program lacked balance – led by Mark Willacy’s activist journalism.”

ACMA’s finding on 17 September 2026 is broadly consistent with what MWD said in March 2025. Namely that “Sacrifice” lacked viewpoint diversity and was not consistent with the taxpayer-funded public broadcaster’s requirement that it be impartial.

Shortly after the release of the ACMA report, the ABC issued a statement titled “ABC rejects ACMA finding that Four Corners report breached impartiality code”. The statement went out in the name of the managing director and editor-in-chief Hugh Marks.

Apparently Mr Marks reckons that it is quite okay for Four Corners to do a program by reporter Matt Willacy on the Australian War Memorial in which the overwhelming majority of interviewees were the critics of the Australian War Memorial’s management.

The ABC defended the integrity of reporter Matt Willacy, who was described as “one of Australia’s most experienced and highly regarded journalists.” Quelle Surprise!

Hugh Marks’ response to ACMA’s criticism is yet another example of the fact that in the Conservative Free Zone that is the ABC, the senior staff still run the joint. It’s still a staff collective – or soviet.

● The ABC & the end of the world: An update

For what it’s worth, Media Watch Dog stands with President Donald J Trump in believing it’s essential for national security that the United States remains ahead of China in the development of Artificial Intelligence (AI).

In short, Ellie’s (male) co-owner has not been scarred by the ABC’s most recent foray into “The End of the World is Nigh” movement.

There was more of this on the ABC News Daily show on Friday 18 September. Let’s go to the transcript:

News report: There’s a greater than 10 per cent chance AI could kill us all by the end of the decade. That’s the stark warning from a manager at the artificial intelligence company Anthropic.

Jacob Coxon, ex-Anthropic researcher: I believe that if we don’t slow down at the current rate of progress, yes, there is a strong chance that we could all die in the immediate future.

Sam Hawley: And it is simply extraordinary, isn’t it, what we have seen in terms of advancements this year alone.

Quite extraordinary, to be sure. But if the world could end by 2035 there’s not much point in purchasing a copy of Nate Soares’ book If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies; Why Superhuman AI Would Kill Us All – which was plugged by Sam Hawley on ABC News Daily. There are better things to do. Like extending Gin & Tonic Time from late afternoon to very early morning.

  • Ian Dunt returns to Late Night Left with abuse for leading British newspapers but praise for British Labour’s Ed Miliband

Wasn’t it great to hear Ian Dunt, the columnist for The i Paper and co-host of the Origin Story podcast, back on ABC Radio National Late Night Live last Tuesday? He last made an appearance in Media Watch Dog on 4 September when MWD cited his references to Britain’s Conservative Party leader Kemi Badenoch as variously “silly” and “stupid”. Apparently, Comrade Dunt presents such analysis as clever. To MWD, it’s just abuse.

But MWD digresses – not for the first time. Last Tuesday, RN Late Night Live presenter David Marr introduced Comrade Dunt as “someone who, pretty much alone among mortals, makes sense of the United Kingdom”. A big claim, to be sure. You be the judge.

The Marr/Dunt interview covered a number of issues. Including , Britain’s Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband. Your man Dunt declared that, when Energy Secretary in the Starmer Labour government, Miliband “really got energy policy…in granular technical detail”. Dunt added that Miliband was committed to fighting climate change. So much so that Britain “probably has the most progressive climate change policy in the western world”.

Well done, Comrade Miliband, and so on. However, your man Dunt did not mention that, due in part to Miliband’s energy policy, Britain has among the highest electricity prices not only in Western Europe but also the rest of the world.

Some achievement, don’t you think? The down-and-outs in London and elsewhere in Britain struggle to heat their homes in winter or pay their electricity bills across all four seasons – while Mr Miliband’s wealth is estimated at £15 million.

Dunt went on to discuss Israel (he’s against the Israeli government), British newspapers (he described The Telegraph and The Times as having become “quite hyperventilating and hysterical”) and President Trump (who he described as a man with a “deeply primitive mind”).

So, there you have it. Ian Dunt has a significant inclination to abuse individuals and organisations which he does not like and to exaggerate. And yet Comrade Marr describes Comrade Dunt as someone who alone makes sense of the UK. Can You Bear It?

  • Raf Epstein gives gratuitous advice about how to avoid making on-air errors

As avid Media Watch Dog readers will recall, in last week’s issue, attention was given to the ABC journalist Raf Epstein who stood in for the journalist Linton Besser in presenting ABC TV’s Media Watch. Since it commenced in April 1989 (some time after “Gerard Henderson’s Media Watch” commenced in The Sydney Institute Quarterly in April 1988), the ABC Media Watch program has only had left-of-centre presenters. Like Comrade Besser. Like Comrade Epstein.

Presenting Media Watch on Monday 7 September, your man Epstein threw the switch to Zzzzzz. There was something about a remote media issue in Queensland which Epstein turned into an attack on the conservative Liberal National Party government. And another one about a remote media issue in the Northern Territory government which Epstein turned into an attack on the conservative Country Liberal Party government. And Zzzzzzz – what’s the point? Re which see last week’s MWD.

Last Monday, Epstein focused on media coverage of the controversy surrounding the Victorian One Nation party leader Warren Pickering and another one on the media coverage of the success of the Alternative for Germany (AfD) in the German state of Saxony-Anhalt. Epstein did not put a name to the state. There was nothing fresh in either report.

All frightfully worthy — but hardly fresh. And then there was a segment titled: “Presenter pranked”.

Raf Epstein reported that News24 presenter James Macpherson had fallen for a prank on Tuesday 8 September. On Thursday 10 September, Macpherson had this to say on News24:

James Macpherson: I ran a clip of a satirical news report about an AFL fan quitting Twitter which I incorrectly attributed to Seven News. This was not a genuine news report and I apologise for the error.

Fair enough. Macpherson made a mistake on a Tuesday and he corrected it with an on-air apology on Thursday.

This is something which the ABC rarely does. For the most part, the ABC does not correct errors on air. They are placed in the Corrections & Clarifications section on the ABC website. That’s all. Some complaints to the ABC take a minimum of six weeks to be handled. In spite of this, Raf Epstein decided to deliver gratuitous advice to Macpherson:

Raf Epstein: Some friendly advice to James. Breathe some fresh air. Even try opting out of the algorithm. Anything to avoid jokes and punchlines that clearly go over your head.

This from an ABC presenter who works for a taxpayer-funded media organisation which rarely corrects or apologises – even for grievous errors which are made on their key programs such as Four Corners. Can You Bear It?

  • Nine’s Calum Jaspan throws the switch to car park gossip

When it comes to media-watching in Australia – there’s Gerard Henderson’s Media Watch (which commenced in April 1988 and became the Media Watch Dog blog later on), ABC TV’s Media Watch (which commenced in May 1989). Plus, The Australian’s “Media Diary” and News24’s The Media Show. And now, most recently, Nine Entertainment’s “On Background”.

Here’s what passes for media news in Nine Entertainment’s newspapers, The Age and Sydney Morning Herald “On Background” segment which is written by Nine’s media reporter Calum Jaspan. The date was Friday 18 September:

“Spotted!

While Nine’s 2GB team was gearing up for a big town hall, [Simon] Robinson’s predecessor was busy elsewhere. Just a few kilometres, and a hop, skip and jump over Sydney’s Central Station, spies at Seven’s Eveleigh offices reported former ABC News boss Justin Stevens walking into the building. Job interview? Scouting out the joint? It turns out Stevens was just parking in the public car park in the same building, where he had parked to run some completely unrelated errands.”

How’s that for non-news media news? Comrade Jaspan reported that the ABC’s former news director Justin Stevens was “Spotted!” walking into a building near Sydney’s Central Station. Was it a job interview? – Comrade Jaspan wondered.

Alas, no. Stevens was just entering a “public car park” while running an errand. And this, according to Calum Jaspan, is media watching which solved a mystery. Can You Bear It?

  • Ex-ABC boss Mark Scott praises the ABC on the ABC

University of Sydney Vice-Chancellor Mark Scott was interviewed on ABC Radio National Breakfast on Thursday 17 September about international students and immigration.

Towards the end of the interview, Sally Sara briefly asked the former ABC managing director and editor-in-chief about the ABC — with respect to the level of public trust it enjoys and whether the ABC has got work to do to ensure that its standards are met. Scott ran the familiar ABC line – which Comrade Sara did not contest.

Mark Scott: Well, what I’d say is if you look everywhere around trust – universities, media, politicians, business, the church – every big institution has had trust challenges…. You cannot take trust for granted. And I think the ABC understands that they have to work hard to earn the trust of the Australian people. But in saying that, I still think it’s much trusted, much trusted, much admired, much loved, and an indispensable part of the lives of millions of Australians every day.

Sally Sara: Mark Scott, thank you for joining me this morning.

Quelle surprise! Mark Scott, the one-time ABC managing director and editor-in-chief, reckons that the ABC is much trusted, much admired and much loved. Despite the fact that its evening news bulletin comes in behind Network 7 and Network 9 and only just in front of Network 10. Which means that, according to the Thought of Scott, Australians must be so stupid that – every morning, every night and frequently during the day – an overwhelming majority of them get their news from media outlets they trust less than the taxpayer-funded public broadcaster which allegedly they trust more. Work that out if you can.

It so happened that Nice Mr Scott’s declaration that the taxpayer-funded public broadcaster is much trusted came the morning before the lunchtime release of a finding by the Australian Communications and Media Authority. ACMA found that the ABC TV’s Four Corners program, titled “Sacrifice”, which aired on 10 March 2025, lacked impartiality in its coverage of developments at the Australian War Memorial in Canberra. See this issue’s “The Latest”.

So there you have it. At breakfast time on 17 September, Nice Mr Scott declared that the ABC was Australia’s most trusted news outlet. But by lunch time, ACMA found that this was not so. Can You Bear It?

[No, not really – now that you ask. By the way, I understand that he is no longer “Nice Mr Scott” since he is now officially termed “Professor Scott”. Now that he’s failed upwards and was appointed Vice-Chancellor of the University of Sydney. As to the term “failed” – well, Nice Professor Scott gave evidence in its Royal Commission on Antisemitism and Social Cohesion – in which he conceded that he had failed Jewish students with respect to their safety from demonstrators critical of Israel’s role in the Israeli Gaza war – MWD Editor.]

  • Hamish Macdonald rationalises the 9 October 2023 “Where’s the Jews” Opera House protest

It is no surprise that the book Bondi Terror by Sharri Markson and Alex Ryvchin has been all but ignored by the ABC. The ABC’s reporting of antisemitism in Australia has been woefully inadequate. However, Hamish Macdonald did conduct a professional radio interview with Alex Ryvchin on the ABC Radio Sydney Mornings program on Wednesday 16 September. It focused in part on the rally which took place outside the Sydney Opera House on 9 October 2023 and was going well until your man Macdonald made this claim:

Hamish Macdonald: There clearly were warnings that went out to the Jewish community, telling them not to be in the CBD on that evening. That, that stood out as an unusual detail. And I know there’s some discussion about whether that was an explicit warning from police or an interpretation of a warning. But, clearly, there were people there that were just expressing a view, you know, exploring their democratic right to take a position, which in itself is not extremist.

What a load of absolute tosh. This is an extraordinary interpretation of the Opera House demonstration. A number of radical antisemitic Islamic extremists and radical leftists shouted hate speech such as “Where’s the Jews” and “f— the Jews”. This was not a simple protest designed to express democratic rights or to take a position on Israel, Gaza and the like. And Comrade Macdonald declared that the Opera House protest on 9 October 2023 contained people who were expressing their democratic right to take to a non-extremist democratic position. Can You Bear It?

[No. But at least your man Macdonald interviewed Alex Ryvchin, a co-author of Bondi Terror – otherwise it appears to have been “cancelled” by the ABC. Perhaps, the ABC Sydney Radio Mornings presenter was ignorant of the footage from the Opera House demonstration. After all, in early 2020, he told Good Weekend magazine that he was “not really a big TV watcher” and he did not own a television. See MWD Issue 482. – MWD Editor.]

A David Marr Moment – David Marr refers to Pauline Hanson as “this woman” which is modern parlance for “that woman”

ABC Radio National Late Night Live presenter David Marr presides over a lively program for the most part, albeit one which lacks viewpoint diversity since the program rarely interviews political conservatives. No surprise really – since the taxpayer-funded public broadcaster is a Conservative Free Zone.

However, the replacement of left-of-centre Laura Tingle in the Monday Australian politics slot with SBS World News journalist Anna (no relation) Henderson, has given a certain balance to its program in so far as Monday is concerned. Which is good for the ABC – but not so good for Ellie’s (male) co-owner since he needs lots of copy for Media Watch Dog and La Tingle kept on giving every Monday night.

But MWD digresses. David Marr has announced on LNL that he has a “Pymble accent”. That is, the type of accent one develops when growing up in an upper-middle-class family in Pymble – on Sydney’s fashionable North Shore. The Pymble man went to the Church of England Grammar School (Shore) in Sydney’s lower North Shore, and in his younger days, worried about a Catholic takeover in Australia.

Now a left-of-centre type, Young Pymble Man was brought up in King and Country Land – which after the death of King George VI, became Queen and Country Land. The Marrs were Protestant types who looked to the Queen as the Queen of Australia and the head of the Church of England. That is, devout monarchists.

Gerard Henderson, on the other hand, was (well) brought up as a Catholic with three Catholic grandparents and one Protestant grandparent. His background is primarily Irish with a significant slab of Scottish (hence the surname). The Henderson family in Melbourne was more interested in the Pope in the Vatican than the Queen in Buckingham Palace.

What’s all this about? – MWD hears some avid readers cry. Well, it’s this. When interviewing Ms Henderson last Monday, an agitated David Marr referred to Senator Pauline Hanson as “this woman” on two occasions. Let’s go to the transcript:

David Marr: Politics works by challenge, and Angus Taylor is challenged. Anthony Albanese is challenged. Why can’t you challenge Pauline Hanson in exactly the same way, in order to persuade people whether or not she and her party are worth voting for? Why is there any sense of hands-off with this woman?…. I’m just restraining myself here, but are we going to see a strong, concerted, eloquent anger directed at this woman for her beliefs?

This reminded Ellie’s (male) co-owner of the term “that woman”, which was directed by monarchists who believed that the twice-divorced American Wallis Simpson had seduced King Edward VIII (formerly the Prince of Wales), to the extent that he abdicated the throne in order to marry her. At the time, the British government would not consent to a king marrying a divorced woman or a Catholic.

So, Mrs Simpson became “That Woman” before, during and after the abdication crisis of 1936. It was a term said to have been used frequently by George VI’s wife who became known as the Queen Mother.

Gerard Henderson believes that Young Pymble Man would have heard members of his family — particularly female ones — using the term “that woman”. After all, the abdication of Edward VIII took place in 1936 and Wallis Simpson lived to 1986. David Marr was born in 1947.

Now here’s some advice for David Marr. Like her or not, Pauline Hanson should be referred to as Pauline Hanson, Senator Hanson, Ms Hanson or Hanson. Not as “this woman” or “that woman”. It would seem that a bit of Pymble Man still resides in David Marr.

Verily, a David Marr moment

History Corner – Gough Whitlam’s opposition to Vietnamese refugees in 1975

Cameron Milner, who is director at GXO Strategies, usually talks a lot of sense. A former Labor Party staffer who worked for Bill Shorten, your man Milner appears regularly on News24 and writes occasionally for The Nightly.

Writing in The Nightly on 7 September, Milner had this to say:

“Labor once prided itself on championing migration. Now it is about to meekly surrender to right wing extremists and pretend to be Hanson-lite Anthony Albanese’s Labor is about to cut off its nose to spite its face over immigration.

“A party that once prided itself on championing migration is about to meekly surrender to right wing extremists and pretend to be Hanson-lite. The Albanese Government was elected by being small target and promising to be Morrison-lite. Now it’s about to do the same on migration by pandering to predominantly to Anglo, male Australians who are planning to vote One Nation.

“In doing so, Labor will trash its reputation built under Gough Whitlam and Bob Hawke as being a party that welcomes new arrivals and embraces the economic benefit and cultural enrichment that it brings. Let’s not forget Kevin Rudd’s more recent embrace of the ‘Big Australia’.”

It’s true that, while prime minister, Bob Hawke and Kevin Rudd favoured high levels of immigration. But not Gough Whitlam.

In fact immigration levels were low during the period of the Whitlam Labor government — December 1972 to November 1975. Whitlam was personally against Vietnamese anti-communists seeking refuge in Australia after the fall of the non-communist government of South Vietnam to the communist government of North Vietnam in late April 1975.

Cabinet papers for 1975, released on New Year’s Day in 2006, reveal that the issue of Australia’s response to Vietnamese asylum seekers was not discussed in Cabinet.

An examination of the departmental files for 1975 reveals that Gough Whitlam maintained the view that Australia will determine who comes to this country. Also, the material demonstrates that Whitlam completely ran the policy on this issue, at times rejecting the somewhat softer line proposed by his foreign minister, Don Willesee, and the Department of Foreign Affairs.

The evidence from the files reveals the following. First, Whitlam’s opposition to accepting asylum seekers from South Vietnam was motivated by a policy not to upset the communist regime in Hanoi. For example, a message from Canberra to the embassy in Hanoi instructed it to advise the North Vietnamese government that Australia “would be very sorry to see the refugee question affect” relations between the two nations.

Hanoi was also to be told that “Australia has not been engaged in mass evacuations from Vietnam. Indeed, apart from the special case of the orphans, fewer than 80 Vietnamese were flown out of Vietnam by Australia”. In fact, Australia boasted to Hanoi about its hard line on asylum seekers.

Another cable, sent to Australia’s embassy in Saigon shortly before the fall of South Vietnam, had an empathetic message: “Locally engaged embassy staff are not to be regarded as endangered by their Australian embassy associations and therefore should not, repeat not, be granted entry to Australia.” In other words, the Whitlam government directed its diplomats to deny asylum to South Vietnamese employed at the embassy even if they had a well-founded fear of persecution.

Some of the few South Vietnamese who made it to Australia were required to sign an undertaking as a condition of their entry that they would not engage in political activity in Australia. Again, the prime policy consideration was not to upset the regime from which the asylum seekers were fleeing.

Second, Whitlam did not want anti-communists to settle in Australia, irrespective of whether they were genuine asylum seekers. Here his stance differed from the position he took following the overthrow of Salvador Allende’s left-wing government in Chile in 1973. Departmental files reveal that in 1975, a senior foreign affairs official reminded the government that “the prime minister directed in November 1973, during the right-wing military coup in Santiago, that the Australian embassy should grant diplomatic asylum to all who sought it”.

Whitlam’s attitude to Asian anti-communists was different. His office file contains a handwritten note: “Do not accept that a person claiming to be a refugee … is entitled to claim residence in Australia. War criminals from Baltic States + Yugoslavia, not from Vietnam”. Here Whitlam was running the line that Australia had accepted war criminals from Eastern Europe after 1945 and would not do so again. Yet there was no evidence that any Vietnamese seeking refuge in Australia in 1975 was a war criminal. Whitlam just did not like anti-communists.

Whitlam’s case for the defence – in correspondence with Gerard Henderson – is published in the March 2003 issue of The Sydney Institute Quarterly. However, the files from 1975 prove that the views of his contemporary critics on this issue — including the academic Nancy Viviani, journalist Denis Warner and the members of the bipartisan Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs — were correct. Whitlam did everything possible to prevent Vietnamese asylum seekers from reaching Australia.

This was confirmed by Clyde Cameron, a member of the Whitlam cabinet, in his book China, Communism and Coca-Cola (Hill of Content, 1980). Cameron wrote that Whitlam told cabinet that he was “not having hundreds of f…… Vietnamese Balts coming into this country with their religious and political hatreds against us”.

The fact is that, contrary to Cameron Milner’s claim, Gough Whitlam did not welcome Vietnamese new arrivals when he was prime minister.

 

 

* * * *

Until next time.

* * * *