On Friday 25 October, Patricia Karvelas interviewed Helen O’Sullivan who was presented as a grandmother “who went from the Gold Coast to Gaza to work as a volunteer aid worker” where, according to the ABC website, Ms O’Sullivan “witnessed the killing of her 26-year-old colleague”. In fact, O’Sullivan did not make it to Gaza. Her colleague was shot by an Israeli Defence Forces sniper on the West Bank in September.
Karvelas acknowledged that the IDF has said that it was highly likely that the 26-year-old was hit indirectly and unintentionally by IDF fire. Helen O’Sullivan does not agree and was unchallenged as she condemned Israel for the death of her colleague Ms Ayşenur Ezgi Eygi.
Towards the end of the 14-minute interview, Helen O’Sullivan was again unchallenged as she attacked Israel for matters unrelated to the death of her colleague. She condemned the death toll in 12 months of 41,000 Palestinians. Ms O’Sullivan not only conflated the Israeli-Gaza war with Israel’s operations in the West Bank. She also failed to acknowledge that the claim that 41,000 Palestinians are dead in the Israel-Gaza war comes from the Hamas Health Ministry and includes an estimated 20,000 Hamas fighters.
Patricia Karvelas made no attempt to correct or verify Ms O’Sullivan’s undocumented assertions. And the ABC wonders why ABC Radio National Breakfast continues to lose listeners.
ABC REORGANISATION STRUCTURE – OR A SCRIPT FROM THE BBC’S COMEDY W1A
Ellie’s (male) co-owner spent four years working in the Commonwealth Public Service (it seemed like 40) and understands the bureaucratic mind. So Hendo was not surprised to discover an article by Calum Jaspan in Nine’s newspapers on 25 October headed “Radio to rule again at ABC after U-turn”.
You see, it’s all about what public servants like to refer to as getting-the-structures-right. Comrade Jaspan’s report is all but incomprehensible. There is a stand-alone Audio Division. It “will consolidate the Audio and the Listener teams, currently in the Content division”. Is all that clear?
This is how your man Jaspan describes the moves just announced by ABC managing director David Anderson:
The latest move winds back a decision in May last year that brought ABC’s regional bureau staff into the News division and created a stand-alone content team to future proof the broadcaster’s output. Anderson said yesterday that rolling the audio and screen content into the Content division in 2023 was the right decision at the time. “This consolidation allowed the team to make considerable progress in the ongoing renewal of our audio output,” he said. “Over the past 16 months we have reshaped the Audio leadership team and created lasting collaborative relationships with the Content division.”
Media Watch Dog has no idea of what all this means.
CAN YOU BEAR IT?
NICE STEVE CANNANE DECLINES TO ASK SENATOR THORPE THE “COLONISED OR COLONISER?” QUESTION
Without question, the media star in Australia in recent times has been Victorian independent Senator Lidia Thorpe. To be honest, Media Watch Dog resented Comrade Thorpe’s move into the Senate in September 2020 – since she had prevailed over MWD fave Julian Burnside (he of the AO, KC postnominals) in a Greens preselection to replace a retiring Greens senator. After all, JB AO KC provided great copy for MWD – especially in the hugely popular Correspondence segment.
However, all has worked out for the best. Especially after the Victorian senator fled such Greens colleagues as Comrade Bandt whom she regarded as somewhat wimpish on the ideological front – quitting the soviet in February 2023 to become an independent senator.
It’s not so long ago that Comrade Senator Thorpe announced that she was “at war” with Australia while holding a $250,000 (plus expenses) job in the parliament of Australia. Quite an achievement when you think about it – or even if you don’t. Since Senator Thorpe is apparently at war with herself – without knowing it.
It was much the same after the Victorian Senator made the headlines on 21 October after yelling at King Charles III in Parliament House Canberra declaring “You are not my king”. This is the man who succeeded Queen Elizabeth II following her death on 8 September 2022 and to whom Senator Thorpe had sworn allegiance on entering the Senate.
In any event, the Victorian senator is treated with respect in sections of the Australian media. This is how she was introduced by Radio National Breakfast presenter Steve Cannane on 23 October:
Steve Cannane: It’s the Royal protest that has made global news. The moment an elected member of the Australian parliament interrupted a reception for the King in Canberra, demanding a treaty for the First Nations people. That parliamentarian was the independent Senator Lidia Thorpe, who is also a Gunnai, Gunditjmara and Djab Wurrung woman. And she joins me this morning ….
Well, all this is true. But Lidia Thorpe has a white father who was interviewed on Sky News’ The Bolt Report on 20 April 2023. What a pity that Comrade Cannane did not ask Comrade Thorpe how it feels to be a victim of white colonisation (on her mother’s side) and a coloniser (on her father’s side). Nor did he ask Senator Thorpe how she proposes to enter into a treaty with herself. Here’s a real question: Can You Bear It?
NINE’S CHARLES CROUCHER RECKONS THAT THE GOOD PEOPLE OF VICTORIA NEED TO BE REPRESENTED BY, WAIT FOR IT, SENATOR THORPE
The issue of whether there will be consequences for Senator Thorpe was discussed on RN Breakfast the following morning when presenter Patricia Karvelas interviewed Network Nine’s political editor Charles Croucher. Your man Croucher ran the sensible argument that Thorpe is in the Senate until mid-2028 and there is little point suspending her for a period of time. But then he threw the switch to political philosophy with, er, uneven results. Let’s go to the transcript:
Charles Croucher: … if you suspend Lidia Thorpe from the parliament, you’re losing her vote and you’re losing a vote for the people of Victoria. Now there’s an argument because of how she was elected on the Greens ticket. But regardless, this is a representative of the people of Victoria. The Senate is already largely undemocratic … Tasmania has 12 senators in the population it has, Victoria has 12 senators and a much larger population. If you take one of those away, then you are drastically underrepresenting those people in Victoria that have, through the Greens, or whichever way possible, elected Lidia Thorpe.
It seems that Network Nine’s political editor does not appreciate that equal representation of states in the Senate was one reason why the various colonies agreed to federation as of January 1901. That was not an undemocratic act – since the Australian Constitution was approved by Australian electors at the time.
The segment concluded with the following exchange:
Charles Croucher: This will go away when parliament returns and I think the people of Victoria need to be represented, and the less time spent on this, the less money spent on constitutional lawyers looking into “heirs” and “hairs”, regardless of how it’s recorded in Hansard in the chamber. And let’s get on with governing the country and helping people’s lives.
Patricia Karvelas: Yeah, really powerfully argued.
Turn it up. The idea that the people of Victoria who voted for a Greens senator can be properly represented by an independent senator is bunk. Can You Bear It?
HAIR TODAY AND GONE TOMORROW, CHARLES CROUCHER OVERLOOKS QUEEN ELIZABETH’S SUCCESSORS
While on the topic of “heirs” and “hairs” it would seem that Charles Croucher seriously believed Senator Thorpe’s claim that when she swore allegiance to Queen Elizabeth on entering the Senate she declared: “I swear allegiance to Queen Elizabeth II, her hairs[sic] and successors”. The point here is that Thorpe claims she swore allegiance to the late Queen and her hairs. Clever, eh? Not really – since she also swore allegiance to Elizabeth II’s successors, with or without hair. Charles III is one of them. This is the point which Nine’s political editor did not address – powerfully or otherwise. Can You Bear It?
ERIK JENSEN, THE [BORING] SATURDAY PAPER’S EDITOR-IN-CHIEF RECKONS THAT OTHER NEWSPAPER READERS ARE MUGS
While on the topic of the Australian media and the House of Windsor, don’t bother to read The Saturday Paper (proprietor Morry Schwartz, editor-in-chief Erik Jensen) on the topic. It’s sure to be out of date. As avid Media Watch Dog readers know, The Saturday Paper is the only newspaper in Australia that carries no news. It is printed on Thursday evening and arrives in inner-city coffee shops on Saturday mornings. Ellie’s (male) co-owner reads it at Gin & Tonic Time on Mondays. What’s the hurry?
Scanning TSP last Monday, Hendo noticed a whole page advertisement headed “Subscribe to The Saturday Paper”. Strange, don’t you think? The Saturday Paper is advertising The Saturday Paper in order to get more sandal-wearing leftists to subscribe to The Saturday Paper.
And then there are the incentives. Any subscribers will get a free mug – yes, a mug – designed by a certain Celeste Mountjoy who identifies as the artist Filthyratbag. Impressed? You should be. After all, the Melbourne-based artist is the author of the philosophical tract titled What the F — k Is This (Macmillan, 2022).
Alas, Filthyratbag’s mug – see below – is only available while stocks last (as the saying goes). This is a “limited edition mug” – but Comrade Jensen is not saying how limited.
Here’s the Morry Schwartz/Erik Jensen pitch. “Subscribe to The Saturday Paper, everything else is for mugs”. This is the same The [Boring] Saturday Paper which publishes the literary sludge of John Hewson and Paul Bongiorno. And Comrade Jensen reckons that anyone who subscribes to any other newspaper is a mug. Can You Bear It?
[No. Not really – now that you ask. Here’s an idea. Perhaps Media Watch Dog could do with its own mug, featuring Ellie. It would be more enticing than the mutt depicted by Comrade Mountjoy – and could be provided to avid readers, while stocks last of course. Here’s a sketch. What do you think? – MWD Editor.]
NEW SEGMENT
AND NOW IT’S TIME FOR A QUELLE SURPRISE! MOMENT
Media Watch Dog just loves it when journalists choose to report the most obvious answers to useless questions – as if the responses have something to do with news. Hence this segment.
IN WHICH CSIRO’S CEO TELLS FOUR CORNERS THAT HE AGREES WITH THE CSIRO’S OWN REPORT
On Monday 7 October, ABC TV Four Corners did a program titled “Nuclear Gamble” presented by Eric Campbell. Needless to say, the tone of “Nuclear Gamble” was hostile to the Coalition’s policy to introduce nuclear energy in Australia. Comrade Campbell’s essential position – as expressed on Four Corners – is that “batteries … combined with hydro and gas backup” for firming renewables “can do the job” of replacing coal – and that nuclear energy is not necessary for Australia now or in the future.
Let’s go to the transcript towards the end of the program when your man Campbell raised the issue of CSIRO’s GenCost 2023-24 final report – written by Paul Graham, Jenny Hayward and James Foster:
Eric Campbell : … The Coalition has … slammed the CSIRO’s GenCost report that found nuclear power could cost around twice as much as renewables.
David Collins: Environmental engineer: In GenCost they were looking purely at the, the generation. It’s, it’s foolish. Generation is only a tiny part of a renewables solution to the problem. You have to consider energy storage. You have to consider energy transmission.
Eric Campbell: The CSIRO rejects his analysis.
Prof. Doug Hilton, CSIRO: The GenCost report is really accurate. We picked the best figures, the most relevant figures to Australia – uh, whether that’s for renewables, whether it’s for nuclear, whether it’s for gas, whether it’s for coal. And we present the data in an objective, considered way.
Eric Campbell: So, you stand by this report.
Prof. Doug Hilton: Absolutely. 100 per cent stand by the report – and, uh, and the team behind the report.
How about that? This was Professor Doug Hilton’s only appearance on Four Corners. Dr Hilton, a molecular and cellular biologist, is the CSIRO’s chief executive. So Campbell asked the CSIRO’s chief executive whether he stood by the CSIRO’s GenCost report. And the CSIRO’s CEO said that he stood by the CSIRO’s report. Who would have thought he would do this? Quelle Surprise! and so on.
Now here’s the problem which the taxpayer funded public broadcaster did not address. Doug Hilton is a scientist – he is not an economist. And the GenCost report has been criticised primarily for its economic calculations – not for its scientific analysis. Here’s one reason why:
The CSIRO’s GenCost report was released in May 2024. Shortly after its release, it received significant criticism from Judith Sloan in The Australian (28 May) and John Kehoe in the Australian Financial Review (12 June). Both pointed out that the CSIRO report made several assumptions that favoured solar and wind power over nuclear energy.
The GenCost report estimates the cost of different energy projects over a 30-year period. However, nuclear plants can last for more than 80 years. Whereas solar panels can last for around 30 years, wind turbines for around 25 years and battery storage for around 15 years. A long period would give a more realistic estimate of costs – in that renewables would need to be completely replaced several times during the lifetime of a nuclear plant. A significant cost savings by taking the nuclear energy path.
The report also makes unfavourable assumptions about what percentage of the time a nuclear plant would be generating power. This is significant because it is one of the main advantages of nuclear energy when compared to solar and wind generations which are dependent on weather conditions (and in the case of solar, the time of day).
In other words, the GenCost report has been criticised primarily with respect to its economic costings concerning which the CSIRO chief executive has no specialist knowledge. Needless to say, Eric Campbell did not interview Judith Sloan or John Kehoe concerning their economic criticisms of the CSIRO report. If your man Campbell had done so he might have received a real surprise, not one of the “quelle” versions.
YOUR TAXES AT WORK
This hugely popular Media Watch Dog segment looks at how taxpayers’ money is spent by governments and councils – along with the various institutions they fund. Of particular interest to Gerard Henderson – a published author who never gets invited to literary festivals, which obviates the need for him to respond to any literary festival RSVP in a negative way – are the various taxpayer funded writers’ weeks.
MWD defines a literary festival as an occasion when a soviet of leftist activists and bureaucrats gets hold of a bucket load of taxpayer funds and invite members of the leftist intelligentsia to rock up to festivals (speakers’ fees, travel and accommodation costs all paid). There they meet fellow panellists of like mind and participate in forums in which everyone agrees with everyone else in a leftist kind of way.
Each year, MWD focuses on various writers’ festivals – in particular, the taxpayer funded get-togethers in Adelaide, Melbourne, Sydney and Canberra.
ONLY TRUMP ANTAGONISTS TO DISCUSS DONALD J TRUMP AT 2024 CANBERRA WRITERS FESTIVAL
There was enormous interest in the previous issue of Media Watch Dog which covered the taxpayer funded leftist stack that is the 2024 Canberra Writers Festival.
Here are a couple of examples of how the 2024 Canberra Writers Festival addressed the forthcoming United States presidential election.
Coming Up Trumps: A Morning with Fred C. Trump III
Every family has a weird uncle. Just ask Fred C. Trump III about his Uncle Donald. Fred never asked for any of this. The divisive politics. The endless headlines. A hijacked last name. But as Donald Trump slouches towards the White House – again – Fred is breaking his decades-long silence. His story is as nuanced as it is revealing: a tale of money, dynastic American power, and the unshakeable bonds of family. Fred advocates on behalf of people with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, like his 25 year-old son William. In a Canberra Writers Festival exclusive Fred joins us live from the US to discuss his complex family legacy and the cause that gives him strength. An unmissable conversation, hosted by Fran Kelly.
So there you have it. Trump antagonist Fran Kelly discusses Donald J Trump with his nephew Fred C Trump III who regards former President Trump as his “weird uncle”. And Fred Trump will come “live” all the way from the United States to flog his memoir which he claimed he never wanted to write. Really.
And then there’s this:
Democracy on a Precipice
In July, the US Supreme Court ruled that Donald J. Trump – convicted felon and Republican presidential nominee – is entitled to broad immunity from criminal prosecution for efforts to undo his 2020 election loss to Joe Biden. The Biden administration labelled the decision “a dangerous precedent” and the implications for US democracy are chilling. But in an age of disinformation and civic decline, there are signs of democratic fragility all over the globe, and Australia is no exception. Barrie Cassidy leads an expert panel of thinkers – Bruce Wolpe, Nick Bryant and Emma Shortis – to discuss our perilous geopolitics
It turns out that Comrade Cassidy and his “expert panel of thinkers” all happen to be Trump antagonists. Bruce Wolpe is the author of Trump’s Australia (2023, Allen & Unwin), which makes dire predictions in the event Trump wins the 2024 election. Nick Bryant is a former BBC Washington DC correspondent who can be relied upon to offer up a list of all the things the alienated left don’t like about America (when he’s not listing all the things the alienated left don’t like about Australia). Emma Shortis is a historian who works for the left-wing Australia Institute and authored Our Exceptional Friend: Australia’s Fatal Alliance with the United States (2021, Hardie Grant). Even the 2024 CWF program quotes the Biden administration as an authority for the case against Trump.
The 2024 Canberra Writers Festival – where almost everyone agrees with almost everyone else on almost everything.
Your Taxes At Work.
PAUL BARRY’S SERMON ON THE MOUNT
Media Watch Dog maintains that the ABC is a conservative free zone without one conservative presenter, producer or editor for any of the taxpayer funded public broadcaster’s news or current affairs programs. This is illustrated by the ABC TV Media Watch program which has had only leftist or left-of-centre presenters since its commenced in May 1989.
In fact, there is more viewpoint diversity on Rupert Murdoch’s Fox News than on Kim Williams’ ABC. For example, Fox News’ MediaBuzz – presented by Howard Kurtz – hears from conservatives and liberals (in the American sense of the term). Moreover, Howard Kurtz presents the program – he does not editorialise. It’s different with Media Watch on ABC TV in Australia. Paul Barry lays down the (media behaviour) law as if he were a modern day Moses descending from the mountain, commandments in hand.
PAUL BARRY’S RANT AGAINST ISRAEL
Paul Barry was at his sermonising best – or worst – on 21 October. He devoted a substantial part of the program condemning the action of the Israeli Defense Forces in Lebanon in its war against the terrorist Hezbollah organisation. Barry commenced a segment titled “Reporting from Lebanon” as follows:
But now once again to the war in the Middle East, which looks set to continue despite the death of the Hamas leader, and to a new level of horror for civilians.
Barry only condemned Israel. He did not concede that Israel is fighting a defensive war on seven fronts. He did not condemn Hamas in Gaza or Hezbollah operating in Lebanon. He said nothing about the mullahs in Iran. And he did not mention the abject failure of the United Nations forces in Lebanon to enforce United Nations resolution 1071, which requires that Hezbollah pull its forces back to the Litani River.
All of Barry’s criticisms focused on Israel. He ignored the fact that, unlike the Allied attacks on Germany and Japan in the Second World War, the IDF has managed to minimise civilian deaths and injuries. This was not possible seven decades ago.
There is nothing wrong with Paul Barry expressing his views on Israel, Hamas, Hezbollah, Lebanon and more besides. However, if the ABC believed in viewpoint diversity, it would balance Barry’s strong position with that of someone with a different view. This never happens.
On Sky News’ Sharri program on 23 October, Sharri Markson interviewed John Spencer, the chair of Urban Warfare Studies at the Modern War Institute at West Point. He made this comment early in the interview:
John Spencer: The fact that the United States has said many times is there is not one bit of evidence to show that Israel has targeted civilians, journalists, aid workers. There have been accidents, but the fact that Israel has done more to prevent and to safeguard civilians and those on the battlefield. But this is war.
In his most recent sermon on the mount, Paul Barry did not consider what Israel has done to avoid civilian casualties. He merely used a taxpayer pulpit to advance his views about a situation concerning which he has no expertise.
A RAF EPSTEIN MOMENT
RAF EPSTEIN LETS HITLER OFF THE HOOK BY SUPPORTING THE VIEW THAT DONALD TRUMP IS “A TOTAL FASCIST”.
Wasn’t it great to see Raf Epstein, who presents the “Mornings” program on ABC Radio Melbourne 774, on the ABC TV Insiders couch on Sunday 20 October? He was joined on the panel by Paul Sakkal (Nine Newspapers) and Sarah Ison (The Australian). David (“Please call me Speersy”) Speers was in the presenter’s chair.
Your man Epstein has very strong opinions – about the veracity of his own opinions. Here is what he had to say about some of what Insiders executive producer Samuel Clark decided were the big issues of the day.
● When discussion turned to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese’s decision to purchase a $4.3 million house on the NSW Central Coast, Comrade Epstein asked “Can we talk about the public response, though?”
Turn it up. The presenter of Mornings in Melbourne presides over a relatively low rating program on the taxpayer-funded public broadcaster. The idea that he can tell us mere mortals what “the public is thinking” based on his ABC 774 discussions is, well, delusional. As it turned out, viewers were told (if viewers there were) that a “huge part” of Comrade Epstein’s audience said that the Albanese house purchase was not a big issue – while “Pip from Coburg” and others like her thought it was a big issue. And to think that Ellie’s (male) co-owner got up at Hangover Time on a Sunday morning to hear such analytical sludge.
● When discussion turned to the Middle East and, in particular, Israel’s war with Hamas and Hezbollah, The Thought of Epstein was heard again in the land. Let’s go to the transcript when discussion focused on Australia’s position on the Middle East conflict and the Australian government’s call for a ceasefire:
Paul Sakkal: … your [Sarah Ison’s] comments just proves how irrelevant our stance is internationally, really, in terms of what we call for next. But just –
Raf Epstein: [Interjecting] Disagree. Australia has a big voice.
Paul Sakkal: It’s an important voice, but it’s largely irrelevant to Netanyahu’s plans. I don’t think he’s, I don’t think he’s listening – but I’ll take your point.
Sakkal was correct to state that Australia’s position on the conflict is largely irrelevant – and his statement that he took Epstein’s point was just polite. The fact is that – rightly or wrongly – Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu does not give a toss about Australia’s position on the conflict or that of any other nation with the exception of the United States and perhaps Britain. Israel is engaged in a war on seven fronts for its very survival and Australia is not a big player in the Middle East. [It would seem that Young Sakkal was well brought up and his politeness has extended to his journalistic career when responding to an Epstein interruption on Insiders. – MWD Editor.]
● The discussion then turned to the killing of Hamas leader Yahya Sinwar by the Israeli Defence Forces. Epstein proceeded to preach a sermon about how Benjamin Netanyahu had said 20 years ago that Israel’s killing of Hamas’ leaders would rein in the terrorist organisation. Epstein said that Israel has “never had fewer friends” and doubted whether “the killing of a Hamas leader is a step towards peace”.
However, in Israel, the Haaretz newspaper – which is a constant critic of Netanyahu – reported on 20 October that there was “disagreement in Gaza over the path taken by Sinwar” and that many citizens of Gaza now hoped that the war would end. They are somewhat closer to the conflict than the ABC’s Melbourne studio in inner-city Southbank – but there you go.
When it came to the “Final Observations” segment, Raf Epstein had this to say:
Raf Epstein: I’m not sure if this is an observation or a prediction. But General Mark A Milley was appointed by Donald Trump as the Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff [in late 2018]. He was tricked by Trump into walking over the road from the White House when there were violent protests. He didn’t like that. His quote that he gave to Bob Woodward in the new book, so this is a guy appointed by Trump [said]: “No one has ever been as dangerous to this country as Donald Trump”. This is what he told Woodward: “Now, I realise he’s a total fascist; he is the most dangerous person to this country”. Top man in military uniform appointed by Trump. We have 20 sleeps to go to find out if Donald Trump wins the election.
● So, there you have it. Raf Epstein, who should know better, is giving succour to the view that Donald J. Trump is a “total fascist”. Like Adolf Hitler, apparently. What a load of absolute tosh.
Verily – A Raf Epstein Moment.
[As I remember, General Milley called the United States’ disastrous exit from Afghanistan (during the Biden administration) a “logistical success”. Moreover, without consulting US President Donald Trump, Milley contacted General Li Zuocheng of the Chinese Communist Party’s People’s Liberation Army and advised him that the US would not be engaging in hostilities with China irrespective of what Trump may say. This despite the fact that there was never any evidence that the Trump administration had any intention of going to war with China. And this is the man your man Epstein quotes with authority on US politics. Really. Perhaps this segment should have gone into your (hugely popular) Can You Bear It? segment. Just a thought. – MWD Editor.]
CORRESPONDENCE
This overwhelmingly popular segment of Media Watch Dog usually works like this. Someone or other thinks it would be a you-beaut idea to write to Gerard Henderson AC (aka Always Courteous) about something or other. And Hendo, being a courteous and well-brought-up kind of guy, replies. Then, hey presto, the correspondence is published in MWD – much to the delight of its avid readers.
There are occasions, however, when (the late) Jackie’s (male) co-owner decides to write a polite note to someone or other – who, in turn, believes that a reply is in order. Publication in MWD invariably follows. There are, alas, some occasions where your man Henderson sends a polite missive – but does not receive the courtesy of a reply. Nevertheless, on occasions, publication of this one-sided correspondence still takes place. For the record – and in the public interest, of course.
DAVID MARR AND GERARD HENDERSON re KING CHARLES III’s (ALLEGED) INVOLVEMENT IN THE WHITLAM DISMISSAL OF 11 NOVEMBER 1975
In his Weekend Australian column on 19 October – see here – Gerard Henderson referred to an interview between ABC Late Night Live presenter David Marr and left-wing historian Jenny Hocking concerning Charles III’s (alleged) involvement in the dismissal of Gough Whitlam’s Labor government by Governor-General Sir John Kerr on 11 November 1975. Your man Marr emailed Hendo about his column. Now read on, s’il vous plait.
David Marr to Gerard Henderson – 20 October 2024
Gerard,
Splendid to get a mention [in The Weekend Australian]. One or two things. First, It was not one of the producers who suggested interviewing Jenny Hocking about Charles’ role in 1975. It was me. I was also the one who said Charles was “up to his neck” in the business. Given that Whitlam had both the Confidence of the House of Reps (confirmed I seem to remember six times) and Supply – both the unexpired. Supply granted months earlier and prospective Supply granted earlier that day – it would not be open to a president to sack him. Nor was it open to Kerr.
Hope you’re well,
David
Gerard Henderson to David Marr – 22 October 2024
David
Splendid that you read my column. A couple of things:
• Thanks for the correction. I was under the impression that ABC producers had the running on who decided the talent for interviews. I now know it was you who decided that Charles was up “to his neck” in the Dismissal.
• I am a bit disappointed, however. Since Late Night Live on this occasion had a presenter who believes that Charles was up to his neck in the Dismissal interviewing Jenny Hocking who believes that Charles was up to his neck in the Dismissal about Charles and the Dismissal. A bit of viewpoint diversity might have led to you interviewing, say, Paul Kelly or Troy Bramston. Like the Marr/Hocking soviet, both are highly critical of John Kerr’s decision to dismiss the Whitlam government. But neither believes that there was any causal connection between Charles and the Dismissal.
• As you will be aware, both Gough Whitlam and Senator Lionel Murphy – when Labor was in opposition in 1970 – declared that any government which was defeated in the Senate on a money bill should resign and call an election. Kerr sacked Whitlam when supply had not passed the Senate and the government was running out of money. 11 November 1975 was the last available date to hold an election before Christmas 1975. Prime Minister Whitlam would not call an election and Opposition leader Malcolm Fraser would not back down on blocking supply.
• For the record, at the time I thought it was unwise for Billy Snedden to block supply in early 1974 – and for Fraser to do the same in late 1975. But it happened. Whitlam sought an early election in 1974 – because (correctly) he believed Labor would win. He opposed an early election in 1975 – because (correctly) he believed that Labor would lose.
• It was open to Kerr to dismiss Whitlam – because he did. Labor never decided to take the matter to the High Court.
• As to Charles, he may have written some unwise letters as a young man. But the view that he was “up to the neck” in the Dismissal is, well, tosh.
In conclusion, I have returned to the Late Night Live church and now listen every night when giving Ellie a Late Night Walk. The program is entertaining and informative. And, on occasions, provides great copy for my Media Watch Dog blog.
Hope your morale is high.
Gerard
David Marr to Gerard Henderson – 22 October 2024
Gerard,
Glad to hear yr listening as you walk – how old is that dog? – and to see you admit in plain Helvetica that Whitlam had supply when he was sacked. The inconvenience of the Xmas holidays is – considering the constitution gravity of Kerr’s move – a bullshit excuse for the sacking. If you are listening you will already have heard and will hear more and more contrary voices. Did you miss Bishop Stead? I’m interviewing Nigel Biggar tomorrow night about his book Colonialism, A Moral Reckoning. Very interesting. Might have you on one day …
David.
Gerard Henderson to David Marr – 23 October 2024
David
Thanks for your reply. BTW, Ellie is totally deaf and does not listen to LNL on her 10.05pm walk. She does not know what she is missing, alas. Here are a few responses:
• I have never said that Whitlam had supply when he was sacked. As Hansard records – the House of Representatives adjourned at 12.55pm on 11 November 1975. Whitlam and Fraser went individually to Government House. Whitlam was sacked by Kerr and then Fraser was commissioned by Kerr to form a caretaker government on the understanding that he call a double dissolution election. The Senate passed supply at 2.20pm on 11 November. At 2.34pm, Fraser told the House that he had been commissioned as prime minister.
• Supply would have run out by the end of December 1975 irrespective of whether it was the holiday season. By the way, Jenny Hocking has addressed The Sydney Institute on the Dismissal. We really do believe in viewpoint diversity.
• I agree that there are more contrary voices heard on LNL these days. I thought your interview with Michael Stead was both fair and good. But you did challenge the bishop. You did not challenge Jenny Hocking’s Charles conspiracy theory. I look forward to listening to Nigel Biggar tonight.
• As to LNL, well, in the early days of Phillip’s little wireless program, I did a few appearances. Including one with Vivian Shenker in 1990 when Phillip was on a well-earned break. Then 25 years later in 2015 I was invited to speak to the ABC’s man-in-black. So I am next due in 2040 (God/or is it god willing). Then 25 years after that in 2065 if I manage to rise from the dead.
Currently, I have been “cancelled” by the ABC. Neither Frank Brennan nor myself got even one ABC interview about our books on the Pell Case. Not much viewpoint diversity there.
Keep morale high.
Gerard
David Marr to Gerard Henderson – 24 October 2024
Gerard,
Hoped you liked Biggar. Next year we’ll be celebrating the 50th anniversary of Kerr’s wonderful work. You’ve still got a year to face the plain, inescapable, clear-as-day, obvious fact that at the time he was sacked, Whitlam had weeks of Supply up his sleeve. Weeks. And earlier on Nov 11 itself, because EGW foolishly failed to tell his party what had happened at Yarralumla, the Senate passed Supply for beyond Dec 1975. You can make what arguments you like for the Sacking but you can’t argue EGW had run out of funds to govern.
All the best,
David.
PS it would help if I knew Ellie’s breed. Are you walking a mastiff?
Gerard Henderson to David Marr – 25 October 2024
David
Yes, I enjoyed the Nigel Biggar interview – it was a good exchange. But I thought that Antony Loewenstein fanging Israel on Tuesday followed by Tawakkol Karman fanging Israel last night was a bit much. I don’t know whether this beaut idea was yours or that of your production team – but it did not do much for viewpoint diversity.
If Whitlam had “weeks of Supply up his sleeve” when he was sacked on 11 November 1975 – well that might have covered Commonwealth government expenditure for several weeks up to early December. What then? – other than a bleak holiday season. As I recall, Whitlam was looking at the possibility of borrowing money from the private banks to pay public servants.
As to the Canine Front. The Hendersons do not do Mastiffs. But we do do Blue Heelers of the real kind. Not fake Blueys of the ABC kind.
Sadly, Jackie, (Dip Wellness, The Gunnedah Institute) recently died in middle age. Another rescue dog blue heeler rocked up. Let me introduce Ellie (Bachelor of Catastrophe Studies and Junk Professor at the Canberra Bubble Institute). As advised, Ellie is profoundly deaf and cannot hear Late Night Live during her Late Night Walk.
Caption: Jackie and Ellie
Keep Morale High
Gerard
* * * * *
Until Next Time.
* * * * *
Unpredictable and dangerous times: Israel and Iran inch closer towards war
Israel has delivered its long-awaited retaliation against Iran by striking key military targets inside the country, but the attack appears calculated to embarrass Iran without immediately triggering an escalation into full scale war.
Stop torturing our young on housing affordability
While there’s no silver bullet on housing, we’re finally taking the right steps to build more homes.