Odd panel of ‘experts’ brought in for 7.30’s US election segment

Republican presidential nominee, former US President Donald Trump, speaks at a rally at the Gaylord Rockies Resort and Convention Center on October 11. Picture: AFP

The Thursday October 10 edition of ABC TV’s 7.30 carried a report on the upcoming US presidential election. Reporter Norman Hermant gave a reasonable overview of the presidential election system and an interview with Kyle Kondik from the University of Virginia Center for Politics provided some insights for Australian viewers who have not been following the election closely. But then it contained lots of what the left terms misinformation.

Unfortunately, Hermant also chose to conduct interviews with Emma Shortis, from the left-wing Australia Institute and Allan Lichtman, a professor from American University.

Shortis is an ABC fave, frequently appearing on News Breakfast as part of what MWD has called the ABC/Guardian/Australia Institute Axis. Here is her contribution on 7.30:

Norman Hermant: Most believe this year’s election will come down to seven swing states. These are the battlegrounds that could vote either way. Most other states are considered to be safely in the Democrat or Republican column.

American University professor Allan Lichtman.

Political researcher Emma Shortis has lived and studied in the US.

Emma Shortis: It is a real change, and a relatively recent one where so few states are up for grabs. But it’s worth remembering that a lot of it is also down to a concerted and long-time effort to gerrymander states so to manipulate electoral systems at the state level so that they become safe. You know, they become really locked up by one party or the other.

For those unfamiliar with the term, gerrymandering refers to the manipulation of electoral boundaries with the intent of creating an artificial advantage for a particular party. The name comes from Elbridge Gerry, the governor of Massachusetts from 1810-1812. Governor Gerry signed a bill redrawing electoral districts within Massachusetts to advantage his party, the Democratic-Republicans. One of the contorted districts was said to resemble a salamander and was dubbed the Gerry-mander by a local newspaper.

Gerrymandering is still an issue within the US political system, it is used by both Democrats and Republicans to maximise advantage in the US House of Representatives and various state-level electoral bodies. However, it is not an issue in presidential elections where the candidates compete to win states, not Congressional districts (with the exception of two small states, Nebraska and Maine).

Obviously, US state boundaries, most of which were determined over a century ago, have not been manipulated to advantage one party in the 2024 presidential election. In short, Comrade Shortis’ analysis was absolute tosh.

As for Professor Allan Lichtman, he has become a media figure based on his “Keys to the White House”, a system he claims predicts presidential elections. Here is how he was introduced on 7.30:

Norman Hermant: Since 1984, Professor Allan Lichtman has been predicting US presidential elections. In 10 races over four decades, he has a near perfect record. Lichtman developed his model with a scientist renowned for making earthquake predictions. He uses 13 keys to predict who will win the race for the White House.

It was not explained to 7.30 viewers how expertise in predicting earthquakes would help in predicting elections. But there you go. Lichtman’s system looks at thirteen “keys” – such as whether each candidate is charismatic and whether there has been a “major scandal” or “social unrest”. Despite the system’s scientific trappings, nine of the thirteen keys are subjective assessments determined by Lichtman, allowing him to easily choose which candidate wins his system.

Lichtman has offered up his assessment based on the “keys” prior to each of the last 10 presidential elections. So, has he had a “near perfect record”, as Norman Hermant claimed?

Well, his prediction was correct in eight out of ten elections. However, most of these elections were not difficult to predict. For instance, in the first election Lichtman predicted – the 1984 contest between incumbent Ronald Reagan and Walter Mondale – President Reagan won 49 out of the 50 US states.

There have been only three close elections since Lichtman started predicting: the 2000 contest between George W Bush and Al Gore and the 2016 and 2020 elections which pitted Donald Trump against Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden respectively.

In 2020 Lichtman correctly predicted a victory for Joe Biden. Score one for the professor.

In 2000, he determined that the keys pointed to a victory for Al Gore. Lichtman has argued that he was correct in 2000 because his system only predicts the popular vote (which Gore won) and not the winner of the Electoral College and therefore the actual election (which Bush won). However, Lichtman did not make this distinction clear prior to the election.

After the 2000 election, he made sure to specify his system only predicted the popular vote, including before the 2016 election where he predicted a (popular vote) victory by Trump. However, Trump lost the popular vote in 2016, rendering that prediction incorrect. Since 2016, Lichtman has claimed that his system now predicts the Electoral College, not the popular vote, despite making no changes to his methods.

So, in the three close elections where he has made a prediction, Lichtman’s record is: one correct (2020) and two incorrect (2000 & 2016). Hardly a “near perfect record”.

In the 2024 election Lichtman is predicting a victory by Kamala Harris. However, prior to President Biden’s announcement that he would not seek a second term, Lichtman attacked Democrats and media figures who were calling for Biden to exit the race. In fact, he seemed to believe that Joe Biden was almost guaranteed re-election if he stayed in, and he told Newsweek:

The party holding the White House has never, I repeat, never, won re-election since the turn of the 20th century when there is an open seat with no incumbent running and an internal party contest…The Democrats are doing everything in their power to reverse the verdict of history, to do something counter-productive and unprecedented in all the years of our democratic republic. And who knows? They may succeed in slitting their own throats and turning the election over to Donald Trump and putting our Democracy in parallel [sic].

Then, after Biden dropped out and the polls showed Kamala Harris doing significantly better than Biden, Lichtman changed his tune and now predicts a victory for Harris. Odd, considering his system is meant to be based on broad historical trends – and not polling or campaigns, which Lichtman dismisses as irrelevant.

So, the experts interviewed by 7.30 for their US election segment included an Australian leftie who uses the term gerrymander, apparently without knowing what it means – and an American professorial election snake-oil salesman.

LATEST NEWS ABOUT HISTORICAL CASES OF PEDOPHILIA IN GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS WHICH LOUISE MILLIGAN AND PETER MCCLELLAN KC OVERLOOKED

While on the topic of 7.30, where are the taxpayer funded public broadcaster’s leading current affairs programs when you need them?

ABC reporter Louise Milligan used 7.30 and ABC Four Corners to attack the Catholic Church in general and Cardinal George Pell in particular concerning historical child sexual abuse. Sarah Ferguson joined in the chorus when reporting for Four Corners – she now presents 7.30.

This week, the ABC Online ran a report by Russell Jackson covering an $8 million settlement by the Victorian Education Department to a man who suffered sexual abuse at Beaumaris Primary school in the 1960s and 1970s. This is one of the literally hundreds of cases of historical child sexual assault in Victorian government schools which were denied for half a century – re which see The Age of October 11 and past issues of MWD.

The issue was completely overlooked by Louise Milligan and Sarah Ferguson who focused on the Catholic and, to a lesser extent, Anglican institutions. Likewise, the Royal Commission into Institutional Responses to Child Sexual Abuse, headed by Peter McClellan KC, did not do a case study into historical cases of pedophilia in one extant government school in the whole of Australia. Not one.

These days the ABC gives occasional coverage to historical pedophiles in state schools in Victoria, Tasmania and NSW. But the likes of Louise Milligan and Sarah Ferguson have shown no apparent interest in the massive failure of the Royal Commission to investigate why the State Departments of Education covered up for pedophiles in their employment for so long. There is still time – if there is the inclination. The report could run on, say, 7.30 or Four Corners presented by Ms Milligan and Ms Ferguson.

CAN YOU BEAR IT?

COMRADE KARVELAS DESCRIBES FLAG-WAVING OPPONENTS OF ISRAEL AS “ANTI-WAR”

Media Watch Dog was devastated to learn – not long after Hangover Time on Wednesday 9 October – that Patricia (“please call me “PK”) Karvelas is stepping down as presenter of Radio National Breakfast. Comrade Karvelas will be greatly missed by Ellie’s (male) co-owner. Having been “cancelled” by the ABC, Hendo was never invited on to PK’s program. But Comrade PK and her producers sure provided great copy for MWD. Maybe RN Breakfast’s current producers will continue under the new presenter – but the Karvelas personal touch will be missed.

It would seem that as a parting gift, PK provided this comment during her interview with Finance Minister Senator Katy Gallagher on Wednesday 9 October:

Patricia Karvelas: Meanwhile, in the Senate, we saw the Greens and Lydia Thorpe attacking the government. Greens’ senators held signs for Israel to be sanctioned. Are you [Senator Gallagher] being wedged on this big issue? That clearly, you know, we’ve seen such big protests – there’s a lot of anger at the government from, from the Jewish community and also the anti-war community.

So, there you have it – according to the Thought of Karvelas. The fact is that Israel is being attacked on seven fronts – Iran, Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in southern Lebanon, the Houthis in Yemen, Iranian-backed militias in Syria, Islamist terrorists on the West Bank and Shia militia in Iraq.

The current conflicts commenced with Hamas’ invasion of southern Israel on 7 October 2023 and Hezbollah firing missiles and rockets into northern Israel the following day.

Sounds pretty war-like don’t you think? Yet Comrade Karvelas sees the local impact of the conflict as being between “the Jewish community” and the “anti-war community”.

So, Comrade PK reckons that those opponents of Israel who support Hamas and Hezbollah (which are financed and supplied by Iran) are “anti-war”. In other words, those who commenced the war are supported by the “anti-war community” in Australia. Can You Bear It?

[No. Not really – now that you ask. I note that PK is not really departing the taxpayer funded public broadcaster – rather she is going through the ABC’s revolving door. As you have pointed out et al ad nauseam – the ABC is a bit like the Eagles’ song Hotel California. ABC types can check out – but they can never leave. Patricia Karvelas will move to what are called special projects – like the recently (ABC) departed Leigh Sales, Fran Kelly, Shaun Micallef and the like while the taxpayer funded public broadcaster remains a conservative free zone. So MWD could get more PK copy. There’s still some hope. – MWD Editor.]

NINE’S NIKI SAVVA USES INSIDERS TO FANG OPPOSITION LEADER PETER DUTTON FOR OPPOSING THE GOVERNMENT

There was enormous interest in Media Watch Dog’s “exclusive” coverage in recent weeks of Niki Savva’s 2024 Speaker’s Lecture to the taxpayer funded House of Representatives in Canberra. Sure, the bureaucrats in Parliament House cleaned up the misspellings of such names as Labor Prime Minister Jim Scullin. But the content remained the same. Ms Savva is a Peter Dutton antagonist and she used the occasion of a captive audience to fang the Liberal Party leader. And hint at the (forthcoming) death of the Liberal Party.

If this had been an annual lecture to, say, the comrades at the Green Left Weekly, MWD would have let it go – misspellings and all. But it wasn’t. Ellie’s (male) co-owner enjoys Comrade Savva’s regular anti-Dutton rants in her occasional column in Nine’s The Age and Sydney Morning Herald – since they provide great copy for MWD. But the House of Representatives should be able to do better than engage an activist journalist to deliver an important address.

While on the topic of Savva as a Dutton antagonist – did anyone watch ABC TV Insiders on Sunday 6 October where the panel comprised three Canberra-based journalists? To wit, Niki Savva (Nine), Katina Curtis (The West Australian) and Phil Coorey (Nine’s Australian Financial Review).

Let’s go to the transcript where, following his interview with Deputy Prime Minister Richard Marles, presenter David Speers went to the panel for comment. He asked whether the Defence Minister’s somewhat vague statement that Israel had a right to defend itself would satisfy the Opposition. Let’s go to the transcript:

David Speers: Does that close this question do you think for the Opposition?

Niki Savva: Probably not. I think Mr Dutton, you know, makes a point of going out every single day and trying to find a point of difference. So no, I don’t think he’ll be happy with that. But –

Katina Curtis: Just on that, I mean, there was a really interesting couple of times this week in Dutton’s press conferences, there’s sort of been this really awkward step change in his language. Where he’s busy saying “the Prime Minister is weak, he’s not showing enough leadership”. And then someone asked about the flights out of Lebanon, and he suddenly switches and he says: “Oh, everyone should be listening to the Prime Minister and doing what he says on this”. So, you know, he really is –

Niki Savva: And then he’s playing both –

Katina Curtis: Then he switches back –

Turn it up. It’s one thing for the Opposition leader to criticise the Prime Minister for his alleged lack of leadership with respect to anti-Semitism in Australia and support for Israel’s war aims. It is quite another matter for him to make the obvious point that Australians in Lebanon should have accepted the Albanese government’s advice to leave as soon as possible. Yet the Insiders duo seem to believe that the Opposition leader should support the Prime Minister on all matters concerning hostilities in the Middle East. Can You Bear It?

“GUARDIAN READER” BEN HART DECLARES ON ABC TV’S NEWS BREAKFAST THAT PETER DUTTON LACKS A BALANCED APPROACH ON ISRAEL

It was much the same when Ben Hart, who presents as founder of the Melbourne-based Fireside Agency, appeared on the ABC TV News Breakfast program on 8 October. Comrade Hart is one of a number of left-of-centre types who appear occasionally on the program’s Newspapers segment – along with The Guardian Australia’s Josh Taylor and the Australia Institute’s Ebony Bennett. Needless to say, no political conservative gets a guernsey in this slot – as befits the taxpayer funded public broadcaster as a conservative free zone.

Your man Hart is an obvious fit for this gig. After all, he has a journalistic background at the ABC plus The Age plus The Guardian Australia. And the Fireside Agency guy boasts that he has advised “several progressive political leaders”. [Interesting. I’m old enough to remember when those who maintain they are “progressive” today were happy to accept that they were really leftists. MWD Ed]

But MWD digresses. Here’s how Comrade Hart commenced telling viewers (if viewers there were) what should have been the news – rather than what was the news. Here we go:

Michael Rowland: What are we kicking off with?

Ben Hart: We kick off with a story from yesterday, which was the extraordinary decision by Peter Dutton to refuse to support the government’s motion recognising the October 7 terrorist attack…It seems that it was the government’s decision to include language around a ceasefire, and a ceasing of hostilities and a two state solution – that was really the deal-breaker there. But Peter Dutton called it a walking both sides of the street from Anthony Albanese. But you know, is it walking both sides of the street? Or is it actually just a balanced approach to the to the issue, I guess is the question.

Bridget Brennan: Yeah…

This was not an extraordinary decision. Opposition leader Peter Dutton believed on 7 October that the House of Representatives should carry a motion remembering Hamas’ attack of 7 October 2023 on southern Israel which led to the greatest number of Jews killed in one day since the Holocaust. And that alone. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese was of a different view. He wanted the motion to include the deaths that occurred subsequent to Israel’s invasion of Gaza some weeks after 7 October when Israel went to war with Hamas – and to call for a ceasefire.

This was a political disagreement. But according to the oh-so-progressive comrade, Labor took a “balanced approach” to the matter whereas the Coalition did not. News Breakfast’s co-presenter Bridget Brennan concurred. Quelle surprise!

Ben Hart went on to comment further about what the Opposition should have done:

Ben Hart: This is the real division between the government and the opposition. I think Peter Dutton has a much more black-and-white approach to this kind of thing and much more of, you know, emphasis on the Israeli side of things. And you’ve got a government that is actually trying to govern and trying to take a balanced approach to this. And it was interesting yesterday. It was borne out with some polling that came out of, from Essential, which showed that 57 per cent of Australians actually back Anthony Albanese position on it. Actually, 58 per cent of coalition voters back Anthony Albanese’s position. So I think you might be able to say that that balanced approach is gaining support of the Australian people.

Michael Rowland: Yeah…

It is true that, according to the Essential poll in The Guardian Australia, a majority of Australians said they are satisfied with the Albanese government’s response to the conflict. But a Resolve poll, published in Nine newspapers around the same time, found that more Australians favoured the Coalition’s approach to the conflict over the position taken by Labor.

In any event, the role of a commentator on the Newspaper segment should state what is the news. And not express political opinions with respect to the government or opposition. The oh-so-progressive Ben Hart was – and remains – a barracker. Can You Bear It?

[I note that Comrade Hart is what the Brits like to call “a Guardian reader” – meaning left-wing type. That’s okay. But News Breakfast should be able to find one political conservative to do the Newspaper gig from time to time. – MWD Editor.]

SMH LETTERS EDITOR MARGOT SAVILLE “BALANCES” CRITICISM OF TWO FORMER LIBERAL PMs WITH THE CRITICISM OF ANOTHER FORMER LIBERAL

The ABC can engage in viewpoint diversity if it wishes. It’s more difficult for the Letters editor of newspapers in times of political controversy – since they are dependent on the correspondence received. MWD fave Margot Saville, The Sydney Morning Herald Letters editor, addressed this issue in her commentary piece on 5 October:

Here at the Herald our commitment to independent journalism includes seeking comment from our readers to guarantee fairness and balance. In these challenging times, maintaining balance on the letters pages is an ongoing issue and I’m grateful to you for assisting.

Fair enough – don’t you think? However, Comrade Saville went on to say that the most popular column of the previous week was written by James Massola criticising the influence of Tony Abbott and Sky News presenter Peta Credlin on Peter Dutton. Ms Saville’s comment piece continued:

Geoff Nilon wrote in: “Almost a decade after Abbott and Credlin, now a Sky News host and News Corp columnist, left office, Liberal MPs are sounding the alarm about the influence the pair has over the strategy and tactics of the federal opposition. Until now, when nominations have been called for Australia’s worst prime ministers, Abbott and Morrison have been foremost. For (Dutton) to be an Abbott/Credlin pawn is disastrous, both for his party and the country.

Reg Richardson disputed this assessment. “In my view, that title well and truly belongs to Billy McMahon, whose reputation was slightly enhanced by having a beautiful wife.”

So, there you have it. The suggestion that the Liberal Party’s Abbott and Morrison were Australia’s worst prime ministers is “balanced” by the claim that, no, the title goes to the Liberal Party’s William McMahon. Which implies that Labor has been tops when it comes to prime ministers. Forgetting the likes of Labor Prime Ministers Jim Scullin, Gough Whitlam and Kevin Rudd – who led Labor to landslide defeats in 1931, 1975 and 2013 respectively. Which raises the question – Can You Bear It?

AN ABC UPDATE

THE REAL AND THE FAKE QUESTION EVERYTHING

Last week’s MWD covered the impending return of the ABC’s Question Everything on Wednesday October 9. For any avid readers who have not caught an episode of QE, it is another one of those ABC panel shows where clips or headlines from the media are played, and the panellists joke about them, mostly amusing themselves.

Originally Question Everything tried to differentiate itself from the many other versions of this format by claiming it was debunking disinformation or some such thing, with tonally jarring explainer segments from Jan Fran.

At some point, it morphed into another standard “making fun news clips” show, but it has one (quite bizarre) point of difference to other similar shows – Question Everything is helping new comedians get experience by casting them on a fake version of the show that is not broadcast and has no audience. Wil Anderson explained this in an interview with news.com.au:

In practical terms what that means is each week, as well as the episode of Question Everything that goes to air, we run another version of the show with different panellists (the only difference being that there is no studio audience). This gives comedians the chance to be in a studio, making a show, and see how it all works without it being the pressure of their first TV appearance.

Wil Anderson.

Apparently, the ABC (aka Almost Bankrupt, Can we have more money please) is using taxpayer funded resources to produce a version of a show that will never air and has no studio audience. Here’s an idea – put one of the comedians on the actual show. Despite what your man Anderson seems to think, appearing on an ABC comedy program is already a low-pressure environment – it has a small audience of rusted-on viewers, with fairly low standards for comedy.

[The version of Question Everything that goes to air probably doesn’t rate that much higher than the one that doesn’t. – MWD Editor.]

In the news.com.au interview, Wil Anderson references three comedians who have appeared on the practice show – only one of whom (Brett Blake) has made it to the real, televised panel. The other two mentioned are already accomplished in their careers. Jordan Barr hosts Triple J’s Weekend Breakfast. And aside from being a successful standup, Takashi Wakasugi has been cast on Channel 10’s Thank God You’re Here and Taskmaster Australia. Apparently, your man Wakasugi is good enough for Channel 10’s comedy programs, but is so far not good enough to make Wil Anderson’s precious Question Everything panel.

MWD tuned in to the episode last night and saw the following joke in a segment about daylight saving:

Wil Anderson: I read “How Daylight Saving Damages Your Health”, but then The Project put me at ease: “Sleep Experts Debunk Daylight Savings Health Risks”. They must sleep in debunk beds.

[Groan – MWD Editor].

How funny is that? If this is what makes the real version of the show, one has to wonder what’s happening on the one no one sees. Maybe young comedians are better off staying far away from Question Everything’s training program.

A CRIKEY MOMENT

IN WHICH ERIC BEECHER’S CONTRIBUTOR MICHAEL SAINSBURY DEMONSTRATES THE NEED FOR A CRIKEY FACT CHECKER

Eric Beecher, the chair of Private Media which publishes the Crikey newsletter, is forever banging on about the need for high standards in journalism. However, alas, your man Beecher does not always practise what he preaches in this regard.

There was enormous interest in the previous issue of Media Watch Dog where it was suggested that Comrade Beecher gave legitimacy to the verballing of Sir Keith Murdoch (1885 – 1952) by someone who was, in fact, a member of the Communist Party of Australia. The alleged incident is mentioned in Eric Beecher’s The Man Who Killed the News (Scribner 2024). But more of this next time.

On 8 October, Crikey (editor Sophie Black) ran an article by Crikey contributor Michael Sainsbury titled “‘Choking on his Talisker’: Church insiders spill on Australia’s new Ukrainian-born cardinal”. Here is how it commenced:

Pope Francis has given a clear view of the late George Pell’s hiring decisions, naming an expatriate Ukrainian bishop as Australia’s latest cardinal. Bishop Mykola Bychok, 44, the leader of the Ukrainian Greek Catholic Church in Australia, is now the church’s youngest cardinal.

In elevating Bychok — appointed only four years after having moved to Australia when named bishop — Pope Francis has overtly passed over senior Australian bishops appointed and promoted since Pell’s elevation to cardinal in 2003. For many years, several bishops have been lobbying (in ways familiar to anyone who works in a large multinational) for a “red hat”.

There were other seemingly obvious candidates. For example, under “normal” circumstances, the archbishop of Sydney, Anthony Fisher, would have been elevated to being a cardinal before Pell had turned 80. He will be “furious”, church insiders say. “Choking on his Talisker,” one senior Catholic source told Crikey.

Comrade Sainsbury’s sources turned out to be “Church insiders” plus “one senior Catholic source” plus “senior Catholic laymen”. Not one of this lot had the intellectual courage to put a name to their words.

Your man Sainsbury seems unaware that the Catholic Church, based at the Vatican, is an elected monarchy ruled over by the Pope. Contrary to Sainsbury’s claims, the late Cardinal George Pell made no “hiring decisions” with respect to cardinals, archbishops and bishops. Those decisions are made by the Pope. Mr Sainsbury should be aware of this – and so should Ms Black.

Believe it or not [I’ll believe it. MWD Editor] Michael Sainsbury claimed to know “what Pope Francis’ view would be”. And he knows that Archbishop Anthony Fisher “will be furious” and “choking on his Talisker”. [Perhaps you should tell your Gin & Tonic followers this is a whisky. MWD Editor]

Comrade Sainsbury also wrote this:

A senior Catholic layperson told Crikey: “It’s the death of the Irish church in Australia and a statement about how the Australian bishops have failed to recognise the multiculturalism in their own organisation. The truth is the church is now importing priests from Asia and elsewhere. This is recognition of that, and Francis is saying that he understands the church here better than Australia’s senior bishops.” Data from the Australian Catholic Migrant and Refugee Office (ACMRO) indicates that 727 overseas-born clergy arrived in Australia between March 2012 and September 2022, about one-quarter of all clergy in the country.

This is hardly news. The late Cardinal Pell said for many years that the Catholic Church in Australia was no longer Irish or Anglo-Celtic. Anyone who followed Pell’s requiem Mass in Sydney would have noticed the large number of Vietnamese, Filipino, Lebanese and Eastern European Australian Catholics in the pews and on the streets.

If Comrade Sainsbury read, say, The Catholic Weekly, he would know that the Catholic Church in Australia is already multicultural. Much more so than, say, the Comrades at Crikey.

HISTORY CORNER

WHEN NEW NATIONAL MUSEUM OF AUSTRALIA CHAIR CLARE WRIGHT TOLD FELLOW HISTORIAN BAIN ATTWOOD TO “HOLD YOUR TONGUE”

The La Trobe University academic Clare Wright is very much a Media Watch Dog fave – even though she presents as a leftist luvvie.

Consequently, Ellie’s (male) co-owner was delighted to read in The Weekend Australian on 28 September that Dr Wright (for a doctor she is) has been appointed as chair of the National Museum of Australia (NMA). This is how Caroline Overington’s “exclusive” report in The Weekend Australian commenced:

The National Museum of Australia’s new council chair, Clare Wright, took an activist position during the voice referendum last year, and she’s not sorry. “Yes, I became an activist,” she says. “I took an active role in a political campaign that was important to me. I thought constantly during that campaign of what it would mean to my yapa (sister) and the children and grandchildren of the Yolngu people to have a voice to parliament.” Wright is not Indigenous, but she says she was “adopted” into the Yolngu in northeast Arnhem Land in 2010 by Valerie Ganambarr, who was the fourth and youngest tribal wife of a former Australian of the year, Yunupingau.

Comrade Wright is one of literally hundreds of her academic colleagues who identify as “activist” historians. But she is one of the few who admit to this. So, why is she a MWD fave – MWD hears avid readers cry?

Well, as Gerard Henderson pointed out in his review of the error-ridden book Fifty Years of La Trobe University (Black Inc 2017) in the The Sydney Institute Review Online), Clare Wright wrote in her chapter that he, along with the likes of Phillip Adams, once partly “controlled cultural production in Australia”. Hendo never knew this at the time – or since. Comrade Wright also declared that La Trobe University “has the capacity to be the first university in Victoria to offer a carbon- neutral degree”. As in Clare Wright (BA Hons, Melb), MA (Melb) and Ph D Carbon-Neutral (La Trobe).

But MWD digresses – not for the first time. The question is – what might the teeming masses get from an “activist” who is chair of the National Museum of Australia? Well, if contemporary history is anything to go by, stand by for some censorship of the NMA. Here’s why.

BAIN ATTWOOD’S ABR ARTICLE

In July 2023, the Australian Book Review published an article by Australian historian Bain Attwood titled “A Referendum in Trouble”. Professor Attwood is Professor of History at Monash University and has published widely in Australian history. He was a supporter of the Voice – but was of the view that the “Yes” advocates had not adequately explained their position. He maintained that the proponents of “No” had done a “much better job” than proponents of “Yes” in explaining their case. His penultimate paragraph read as follows:

I assume – or at least I hope – that in the next month or so the Labor government and their closest Aboriginal advisers will tackle what Freud would call a state of denial – the state of knowing but being unable or unwilling to acknowledge what you know – and reluctantly agree that it would be best for the government to accept that the “Yes” case will probably lose, abandon the referendum for the foreseeable future, and seek to pass legislation that will create an Aboriginal voice to parliament.

CLARE WRIGHT FANGS BAIN ATTWOOD

This was a reasoned analysis by a considered scholar. Which, in the event, proved to be a timely warning. But Comrade Wright threw the switch to anger and abuse. In a letter published in the Australian Book Review’s August 2023 edition, Wright had this to say:

Attwood might have once been considered a progressive scholar, but he is no ally. The upcoming referendum is a political struggle, not a tutorial assignment. … What good could possibly come now – four months out from a national vote in an era when the electorate is noticeably volatile and opinion polls are notoriously unreliable – from Attwood’s conclusion that, “I find it hard to imagine that the ‘yes’ case will succeed?” Why weigh in with such imaginative parsimony at a time when those tireless First Nations campaigners in whom Attwood has so little faith are calling for “hearts full of courage and optimism?” Why indulge in intellectual virtuosity when you could, for example, model some “truth-listening” and hold your tongue until after the referendum? Every white academic with a keyboard and a tenured job is entitled to their opinion, but I fail to see what positive benefit to the project of Aboriginal self-determination Attwood’s intervention serves. Let’s hope that his imagination and his intercession are on the wrong side of history.

This is what Dr Wright was saying to Dr Attwood – “Shut up!” She described Attwood’s considered warning as “imaginative parsimony” and told him to “hold your tongue” since the Monash University historian was “on the wrong side of history”.

BAIN ATTWOOD’S RESPONSE

Bain Attwood responded to Clare Wright in ABR’s August 2023 issue – and concluded this way:

Finally, while I acknowledge that enormous passion necessarily informs the political struggle over the referendum, I wish those such as Professor Wright could be civil and courteous towards those who have different views about the referendum. This might even help the Yes case (which I happen to support).

JOAN BEAUMONT CRITICISES WRIGHT’S ATTEMPT TO SUPPRESS DISSENT

In the same issue, Dr Joan Beaumont – one of Australia’s leading historians – had this to say:

Clare Wright’s letter taking issue with Bain Attwood’s article ‘A Referendum in Trouble’ is a predictable example of the suppression of dissent: in that it aims to silence opponents, not by defeating their argument but by stigmatising them on political and/or moral grounds. … There can be no doubt that it is an urgent national priority to recognise Australia’s Indigenous peoples, and take appropriate action to address their enduring socio-economic disadvantages. But it is deeply illiberal to silence fellow historians who debate the means by which this might best be achieved.

Of course, the writing of history is never value-free. But the primary obligation of the professional historian is to understand the past – even if that understanding suggests conclusions that are unpalatable and unsettling for the present. Wright concludes with the hope that Attwood will be proved to be on “the wrong side of history”. A professional historian should know better than this. If the study of the past teaches us anything, it is that orthodoxies of one generation can become heresies of the next (and the reverse). And even if there were to be something approximating a permanent moral consensus, we cannot be confident that human beings are on a linear progression, improving over time, and emerging from darker, less enlightened times to a more moral present.

JAMES CURRAN CONDEMNS CLARE WRIGHT’S LANGUAGE OF “THE PARTY CELL”

Writing in ABR’s September 2023 issue, the historian James Curran commented that “Clare Wright’s letter in response to Bain Attwood should profoundly disturb and unsettle anyone in this country concerned about the survival of active, rigorous and engaged historical scholarship.”

Dr Curran added that “Wright wants to silence historians and scholars who do not subscribe to the progressive left’s views of the Voice”. He wrote that Wright’s claim that Attwood was on the wrong side of history “is the language of the party cell, not of intellectual discourse”. Curran said: “Wright’s response [to Attwood] was not only fundamentally illiberal but establishes a political loyalty test for scholarship”.

WILL COMRADE WRIGHT’S VIEW OF “THE WRONG SIDE OF HISTORY” IMPACT ON THE NMA?

The likes of Bain Attwood, Joan Beaumont and James Curran are not political conservatives. It’s just that they favour debate and discussion. Whereas Clare Wright believes that the likes of Attwood should shut up since he is on the wrong side of history - whatever that might mean.

The result of the October 2023 referendum on the voice – which was defeated 60 per cent to 40 per cent and did not achieve a majority in any state – demonstrates that Bain Attwood was talking sense. However, even if his views were proven to be wrong, he was entitled to express his position without being silenced. Moreover, it was ridiculous for Comrade Wright to believe that a long article published in the Australian Book Review in July 2023 by a Monash University academic would affect how Australians might vote in the October 2023 referendum.

It remains to be seen whether Clare (“I’m an activist historian”) Wright will take her censorious persona into her new position as chair of the Australian National Museum.