The inaugural issue of Gerard Henderson's Media Watch was published in April 1988 - over a year before the first edition of the ABC TV Media Watch went to air. Since November 1997 "Gerard Henderson's Media Watch" has been published as part of The Sydney Institute Quarterly. Gerard Henderson's Media Watch Dog commenced on 6 March 2009.
Issue 64
July 30th, 2010. .
GERARD HENDERSON’S MEDIA WATCH DOG - ISSUE NO. 64
30 JULY 2010
IN THIS ISSUE
● How Red Kerry’s Questions Are Longer Than His Guests’ Answers
● Nancy’s Picks-of-the-Week - With A Focus on Beat-Ups: Paul Munro At The Sunday-Guardian-On-The-Yarra Gives Labor Dirty Trick A Run; Daily Telegraph Verbals And Ages PM
● Special Maurice Newman Segment Continues: Everyone Agrees With Everyone Else in ABC-Land On Climate Change, The Leaders’ Debate, Sarah Palin And All That Stuff
● Nancy’s Five Paws Award: Chris Uhlmann and Alison Carabine Step Up With Some Of The Most Exaggerated Hyperbole In The Annals Of Human History
● History Corner: Daughter Of The Stalinist Revolution - Lee Rhiannon - Has Long-Term Memory Loss About Mum & Dad and Uncle Joe
● MUA - Here To Stay With Falsified History On The Nazi-Soviet Pact
● Special You-Beaut Exclusive: Believe It Or Not Robert Manne Writes to MWD (Yet Again) About HIMSELF (Yet Again)
STOP PRESS
Tony Abbott Defeats Red Kerry In The Great (7.30 Report) Debate - By A Mere 33 Words Due To A Statistical Aberration
Being deaf, Nancy cannot listen to interviews. But, by golly, she can certainly count words.
There was a time when high profile ABC presenters used to interview people - on the assumption that viewers/listeners wanted to hear what interviewees had to say. Not any more. Now the likes of the 7.30 Report’s Kerry O’Brien, Lateline’s Tony Jones and Radio National Breakfast’s Fran Kelly tend to engage in debates - over which they preside. This conceit seems to be based on the belief that viewers/listeners are just as interested in the opinions of ABC presenters as they are of those being interviewed. Perhaps more so.
Now, back to Nancy’s count. MWD is of the considered view that Tony Abbott did very well in his debate with Kerry O’Brien on the 7.30 Report last Monday. Very well indeed. You see, the Liberal Party leader won the debate.
How do we know this? Well, according to Nancy’s count, Mr Abbott got 1742 words in edgeways - compared with Mr O’Brien’s 1709 words. In percentage terms, Tony Abbott got 50.5 per cent of the on-air time compared to Kerry O’Brien’s 49.5 per cent. Well done, Tony Abbott.
To be fair to Mr O’Brien, however, Tony Abbott got some artificial assistance - since the 7.30 Report decided to show the Opposition leader a long clip of an interview he did with Kerry O’Brien on 27 July 2009. The aim was to make Tony Abbott account to the 7.30 Report presenter about views he had expressed in the past. In view of the planned cross-examination, Mr Abbott’s 2009 interview featured a bit more Abbott and a bit less O’Brien - making it possible for the Opposition leader to achieve an overall victory. [Interesting tactic. Has Mr O'Brien tried this one on Julia Gillard? And is there any extant footage of "Red Kerry" during the days when he was Labor legend Gough Whitlam's press secretary? Surely this could be worth a replay on the public broadcaster. - Ed].
In fact - if the Abbott/O’Brien replay is not counted - Kerry O’Brien had 51.5 per cent of the interview time to Tony Abbott’s 48.5 per cent. Kerry O’Brien is more inclined to listen to other political leaders. He gave Julia Gillard 58.5 per cent of air time on 19 July. On 5 July he allowed Greens leader Bob Brown a whopping 63 per cent of air time - and confined himself to a mere 37 per cent.
NANCY’S PICKS OF THE WEEK WITH A FOCUS ON BEAT-UPS
Peter Munro Sucks Up The Dirty Trick
On Saturday night, Channel 7 News ran the shock/horror story which went something like this. Some three decades ago, Tony Abbott was hooker for Oxford University Rugby Union which played against Cambridge University. That evening there was a ball and Young Tony got somewhat tired and emotional. He fronted up to Prince Andrew and advised him that his brother Prince Charles had put in a poor performance during his recent visit Down Under. In fact, Young Tony suggested that Charlie was about as useless as the porn star Linda Lovelace would be if she didn’t do what she was famous for doing in Deep Throat. Are you with me?
And so it came to pass that Young Tony was escorted from the premises by security guards - and the incident was subsequently reported, in somewhat exaggerated form, in a student newspaper.
Mr Abbott dismissed the Channel 7 Report as part of a Labor Party dirty tricks campaign - which it probably is. The story did not create much media excitement except in, you’ve guessed it, the Sunday Age.
Step forward The-Sunday-Guardian-on-the-Yarra’s intrepid reporter Peter Munro. Mr Munro (i) opined that the Channel 7 revelations “were a distraction for [sic] Mr Abbott’s attempt to present himself as ‘female friendly’”, (ii) suggested that “the former head of Australians for Constitutional Monarchy” had been caught “in flagrante as it were” and (iii) declared that he had “once been a very naughty boy indeed”. How about that?
The Sunday-Guardian-on-the-Yarra featured Mr Munro’s piss-poor story under the heading “Happy hooker Tony gags on right royal blue”. [How long do you reckon it took for the subs to think this one up? Ed].
Still, it’s great to know that Peter Munro is covering BIG STORIES of the 2010 election campaign and that The Sunday Age is on the job, so to speak.
Daily Telegraph - On Hearsay And Ageing
Meanwhile in Sydney the Daily Telegraph devoted its front page to the unsourced story that Julia Gillard had opposed an increase in the pension on the basis that “old people never vote for us”. This is not just hearsay - it was anonymous unsourced hearsay.
The Daily Telegraph illustrated its story with a digital mock-up of how the Prime Minister might look when she is of pension age. It turned out that she was digitally enhanced to look like Dracula’s mum. [Are you sure Dracula has a mother? - Ed]. This kind of beat-up gives beat-ups a really bad name.
SPECIAL MAURICE NEWMAN SEGMENT (CONTINUED)
This (popular) segment is devoted to ABC Chairman Maurice Newman’s suggestion that a certain “group think” might be prevalent at the ABC - and to ABC 1 Media Watch presenter Jonathan Holmes’ certainty that no such phenomenon is extant within the public broadcaster. See MWD passim.
MWD discovered further proof this week that the ABC chairman was on to something when he spoke about ABC programs where everyone agrees with everyone else.
· Lateline Express - All Aboard The Climate Change Loco
On Friday 23 July Lateline reported reaction to Julia Gillard’s climate change policy. The Gillard Government has delayed the introduction of its planned carbon pollution reduction scheme - or emissions trading scheme - for some time. This follows Tony Abbott’s junking of the Liberal Party’s one-time commitment to emissions trading.
So what did Lateline do? The header to the program’s transcript gives us an idea. It reads: “Gillard cops criticism over climate plan”. Then Lateline lined up Don Henry from the Australian Conservation Foundation plus John Daley from the taxpayer funded Grattan Institute. Henry bagged the Gillard Government while John Daley called for the immediate introduction of a carbon price. Brad Page from the Energy Supply Association of Australia told Lateline that he supported the Gillard Government’s consultation process but attacked Tony Abbott’s position. ANU academic Warwick McKibbin was briefly interviewed - he also supports a carbon price.
So where was an opinion which supported the Abbott Opposition’s policy to reject an ETS? Well, it just wasn’t heard. By the way, didn’t Don Henry get a valuable five minutes or so of our time on ABC 2 News Breakfast last Tuesday to bang on about environment and all that?
· Q&A - Or Five To One
Then on Monday 26 July Q&A lined up a panel of five for a discussion in which climate change featured prominently. Four out of the panel were strong supporters of either an ETS or a more hardline approach to climate change - Climate Change Minister Penny Wong, Opposition backbencher Malcolm Turnbull, Greens Senate Christine Milne and former Labor minister Graham Richardson. Then there was The Spectator Australia editor Tom Switzer - the heretic in the room. Presenter Tony Jones was on the Wong/Turnbull/ Milne/Richardson side of the debate. Okay, not everyone on the panel agreed with everyone else on the ETS. But a 5 to 1 split on the need for Australia to act on climate is a pretty good effort, when you think about it.
· Drumming To A Constant Beat
Also on Monday 26 July, The Drum Unleashed carried a piece by Ray D’Cruz under the heading “Judges’ verdicts: Gillard wins a close debate”. The reference was to the Leaders’ Debate of the previous evening. Some commentators had declared Julia Gillard a winner. However, others - including Channel 9’s Laurie Oakes, Radio National’s Alison Carabine and Channel 7’s Mark Riley - called it for Tony Abbott.
So what did The Drum do? Well it handed over analysis of the Leaders Debate to Ray D’Cruz, the founder of Election Debates. Mr D’Cruz commissioned a panel of seven. Guess what? All seven awarded the debate to the Prime Minister. That’s more like it.
· Phillip Adams Hears Phillip Adams - Voice Of The Sandal Wearers
Then on Late Night Live on Wednesday Phillip Adams commenced the program by interviewing Professor Parvez Ahmed - about the proposal to build an Islamic Culture Centre near the former site of the Twin Towers in New York. Adams agreed with Professor Ahmed as he comprehensively bagged the opponents of this proposal, including Sarah Palin.
Then the ABC’s “Man-in-Black” interviewed Gita Sahgal, who is critical of Amnesty International’s promotion of the Taliban-fan Moazzam Begg. Adams contested Ms Sahgal s position and promised his sandal-wearing listeners that LNL would seek out a response from Amnesty International. However, Comrade Adams did not promise to sound out someone - anyone - who would dispute Ahmed’s position or defend Ms Palin. Meanwhile Phillip Adams revealed that he might not vote Labor at this election and give his number one vote to, wait for it, the Greens. Gosh.
NANCY’S FIVE PAWS AWARDS [For The Greatest Attempts At Hyperbole In The History Of The World, During An Election Campaign Down Under]
It’s a competitive field. But Nancy has been especially impressed by the level of hyperbole in the election campaign. Try this for size.
- Chris Ulhmann - Theory In Search Of A Sentence
ABC News 24’s political editor Chris Uhlmann writes in The Spectator Australia (17 July) that careers at The Australian “are being made if you can cream ‘left-wing bias’, ‘waste’, ‘hopeless’, ‘joke’ ‘sloth-like’ and ‘ABC’ into a single sentence”.
Alas, Mr Uhlmann did not nominate anyone who has made such a career at The Australian after constructing such a sentence.
- Alison Carabine Looks At Ms Gillard - Sees Mr Stalin
Radio National reporter Alison Carabine tells ABC local Radio’s Deborah Cameron in Sydney yesterday that Julia Gillard’s election campaign is “shrouded in Soviet style secrecy”. This is tops for hyperbole but somewhere deficient in the history area - since the Soviet Union did not hold elections. Still, it was worth a try.
HISTORY CORNER
Lee Rhiannon (Daughter of the Stalinist Revolution) Fudges Mummy and Daddy’s Past Deeds
In Issue 62 “History Corner” looked at the “brilliant” Stalinist career of the Brown family - father Bill Brown, mother Freda Brown and their offspring Lee Brown (born 1951). Lee Brown married and became Lee O’Gorman and later changed her name to Lee Rhiannon. Ms Rhiannon is the Greens candidate for a Senate position in New South Wales at the 21 August 2010 Federal election.
On 28 July the Sydney Morning Herald carried a letter from Ms Rhiannon in which she wrote, inter alia:
Neither my parents nor I were Stalinists. The crimes committed under Stalin were horrific and I and Greens members certainly condemn them. For the record I joined the 1968 protest against the invasion of Czechoslovakia.
What a load of tripe. And now for some facts:
Bill Brown (1917-1992) joined the Communist Party of Australia (CPA) in 1940. Freda Brown (1919-2009) joined the CPA in 1936. During this period one or more of the Browns - usually both - supported the following acts of the leadership of the Communist Party in the Soviet Union, headed by the totalitarian dictator Josef Stalin.
- The Forced Famine in Ukraine
- The purges and show trials of the 1930s
- The Nazi Soviet Pact of 1939-1941, which effectively commenced the Second World War following the decision reached by Nazi dictator Adolf Hitler and communist dictator Josef Stalin to divide Eastern Europe between the Soviet Union and Germany.
- The crushing of Eastern Europe by the Red Army after the Second World War and the establishment of totalitarian Soviet satellites in the Baltic States, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, East Germany and Romania.
- The suppression of workers’ uprisings in East Germany and Poland in the early 1950s.
- The anti-semitic “Doctors’ Plot” of the early 1950s which was instigated by Stalin.
Josef Stalin died in 1953. Some of his crimes were denounced by his replacement Nikita Khrushchev in 1956. But until at least 1956, contrary to Lee Rhiannon’s claim, all communists were Stalinists - and all Stalinists were communists. This included Mr and Mrs Brown who were to have a lovely daughter named Lee.
In any event, the Browns did not denounce Stalin or his heirs in 1956. Based on the “whateverist principle” - meaning that good communists followed whatever dictator was in charge in Moscow - the Browns supported the Soviet Union’s invasion of both Hungary (in 1956) and Czechoslovakia (in 1968). When the CPA opposed Moscow’s suppression of what was called the Prague Spring in 1968, the Browns quit the CPA and joined the Socialist Party of Australia (SPA) which received funds from Moscow.
And what about Lee Rhiannon (nee Brown)? Born in 1951, Lee joined the CPA as a teenager and left the party in 1970/71 with her parents - in protest at the CPA’s opposition to the Soviet Union’s invasion of Czechoslovakia. She joined the SPA - the continuing Stalinists - which supported the Soviet Union’s invasion of Czechoslovakia.
In short, Bill Brown and Freda Brown were Stalinists - without question. And Lee Brown supported the Stalinists who backed Moscow’s suppression of the Prague Spring - without question. A “little bird” has advised MWD that - when named Lee O’Gorman - Ms Rhiannon edited the SPA’s journal Survey. Apparently, Lee Brown/O’Gorman/Rhiannon edited Survey during its final years - the magazine went out of business as a consequence of the collapse of the Soviet Union. [You must run some excerpts from this Stalinist rag in next week's MWD - Ed].
Read All About It - MUA Official Maintains that World War II Commenced in 1941
While on the topic of the Communist Party, Stalinists and all that - did you read Paul McAleer’s letter to the Sydney Morning Herald on 11 June 2010? Mr McAleer is the Sydney branch secretary of the Maritime Union of Australia - which was formerly the Waterside Federation of Australia.
Paul McAleer defended the MUA’s “moral authority” and declared that “our union suffered the loss of one in eight seafarers on merchant vessels during World War II defending our country and the world against fascism”.
What Paul McAleer neglected to tell Herald readers was that the communist leadership of the WWF supported the Nazi Soviet Pact of 1939-1941. From the commencement of World War II until Germany’s invasion of the Soviet Union in mid 1941, the WWF not only barracked for Adolf Hitler’s Nazi Party to win World War II. More seriously, the communist comrades at WWF did everything in their power to sabotage Australia’s contribution to the Allied war effort, led by Britain.
Which raises the question. Why do some comrades have such poor memories?
CORRESPONDENCE
YOUR TAXPAYER DOLLARS AT WORK - ROBERT MANNE WRITES TO MWD (AGAIN)
It’s great that Media Watch Dog has so many avid readers in the La Trobe University Politics Department.
Believe it or not, Robert Manne has written to MWD again - following last week’s Correspondence section. This is the very same Professor Manne who, as chairman of The Monthly, refused to publish a correspondence section in its print edition and declined to publish corrections.
In any event, this is Professor Manne’s latest missive about his favourite topic, namely, HIMSELF.
Robert Manne Writes
Robert Manne to Gerard Henderson - Sunday 26 July 2010
Dear Gerard,
More “howlers” for your next issue.
I did not write on Rudd “shortly after Julia Gillard became Prime Minister”. The piece in The Weekend Australian of 26-27 June was an extract taken from the July issue of The Monthly. This is made crystal clear in The Australian. My piece was written on June 16 several days before the removal of Rudd. Go to page 13 of the magazine. Others have noticed this. Why not you?
“In the early 1970s Manne was an enthusiastic supporter of Labor’s Gough Whitlam”. This is another Henderson invention. In the early 1970s I was studying in Oxford and not following Australian politics at all closely. When I returned in 1974 I witnessed the collapse of the government with amazement and was on balance hostile to the Whitlam government eg over the de jure recognition of the annexation of the Baltic states by the Soviet Union and the shabby treatment of Vietnamese refugees. Please supply your evidence for my enthusiastic support for the Whitlam government in the early 1970s or retract in next issue.
It is also not true that at the time of the Keating government I was a “fan’. If I had been a fan I would not have voted for Howard in 1996. You frequently refer to this fact so you can’t pretend to ignorance. Please supply evidence that I was a fan of Keating during the period of his government or retract in the next issue.
To help you: it was really only in 1997 that my views regarding the party political issue in Australia began to shift. The main reason was my disapproval of most of what the Howard government was doing.
Although you will continue to publish emails without their authors’ permission, for the record you have my permission to publish this so long as it is in full.
Good luck with your homework.
Robert
Robert Manne to Gerard Henderson - Wednesday 28 July 2010
Gerard,
Perhaps you haven’t had time to reply.
Could you please assure me that you intend to make corrections in the next issue of Media Watch?
Robert
Gerard Henderson to Robert Manne - Wednesday 28 July 2010
Robert
Yes, I am pretty busy. After all I run a business. But I always have time for you, of course.
Last Sunday you forwarded a letter which you want me to publish in Media Watch Dog on Friday. Today is Wednesday.
As you should be aware, I always publish your correspondence. Indeed, I look forward to it.
I note for the record, however, that as editorial chairman of The Monthly you presided over a magazine which refused to publish my correspondence in the print edition and did not have a policy of corrections. Your false claims about me remain uncorrected in The Monthly. I also understand that you tended not to publish people you disagreed with when you edited Quadrant.
My (gratuitous) advice is - stay calm. It’s only two sleeps till Friday. All will be revealed then.
Best wishes
Gerard
Robert Manne to Gerard Henderson - Wednesday 28 July 2010
Thanks Gerard. No doubt you will explain your enigmatic: “I also understand that you tended not to publish people you disagreed with when you edited Quadrant.” My policy was pluralist. The magazine ran pieces from across the political spectrum ( although it is true that I drew the line at a piece by Hal Colebatch of Perth arguing that Manning Clark was anti-semitic.). That was one of the things held against me by its old guard. For your interest, Keith Windschuttle has refused me the right to reply to his recent piece on me in Quadrant telling me I must be content to be published in Quadrant Online, a site with almost as much authority and interest as your very own Media Watch.
Robert
Gerard Henderson to Robert Manne - Friday 30 July
Robert
I was shocked, absolutely shocked, by the assertion in your most recent email that Media Watch Dog lacks “authority and interest”. In view of this, why do you keep writing to MWD? Surely a tenured academic, like you, should have something better to do with your time.
In any event, the attention is flattering. So keep those emails coming.
As to the content of your note, I have nothing to do with Quadrant or Keith Windschuttle. If I were Dr Windschuttle, I would publish you in Quadrant’s print edition. Really and truly. As you know, I have published you in The Sydney Institute Quarterly and Media Watch Dog.
I understand your frustration in being confined to Quadrant Online. In the words of the current cliché, I feel your pain. However, I should remind you that this is the tactic you used with your critics at The Monthly. When I sought to correct errors written about me in The Monthly, I was told that I could only be published in The Monthly Online. There is an unpleasant double standard here. You should not complain when Windschuttle does to you what you used to do to others.
As to Quadrant, I understand that you (successfully) sought Patrick Morgan’s removal from the Quadrant editorial advisory board in 1992 when he called for a frank discussion about the pro-protectionist line which you were running as Quadrant editor at the time. I am advised that Patrick Morgan asked for a discussion of this matter during a conference-call meeting of the editorial board and that you responded by demanding - and achieving - his exclusion from the Quadrant board. This does not sound like “pluralist” behaviour to me.
I also understand that, around this time, you also successfully sought Ray Evans’ exclusion from the Quadrant board. And I am advised that you indicated to the late Frank Knopfelmacher that you did not want to run his material in Quadrant. This has been confirmed by Ray Evans who recalls Dr Knopfelmacher’s complaint at the time.
All this occurred at the time when you opposed the economic reform agenda of the Hawke and Keating governments. I note that you now concede that your position was mistaken.
Keep morale high.
Gerard
Gerard Henderson Responds To Robert Manne’s Request For Evidence
Robert Manne is complaining about the following reference to him which appeared in last Friday’s Media Watch Dog, viz:
… in The Weekend Australian on 26-27 June 2010 - just after Julia Gillard became prime minister - Robert Manne wrote about Kevin Rudd’s “hyperactive, controlling, hectoring and interfering” temperament. Manne also claimed that Rudd lacks a “native political instinct”, exhibited a “manic work ethic” and lacked “political touch”. Fancy that. In the November 2008 issue of The Monthly Robert Manne proudly declared that he had “become a Ruddite”. So, in less than two years, Manne has gone from being a Ruddite to depicting the former prime minister as a hectoring, manic, control freak without political skills.
But Mr Rudd should not be too upset by the Professor’s most recent metamorphosis. In the early 1970s Robert Manne was an enthusiastic supporter of Labor’s Gough Whitlam, then he embraced the Catholic anti-communist B.A. Santamaria, then he became a fan of Paul Keating, then he voted against Keating in 1996 and proudly supported John Howard, then he became the leading Howard-hater in the land, then he became a Ruddite, then he junked Rudd, then…
In response, I make the following points:
- The fact is that Robert Manne’s article on Kevin Rudd was published in The Weekend Australian on 26-27 June 2010 - just after Julia Gillard became prime minister. Since it was evident by the evening of Wednesday 23 July 2010 that Ms Gillard would replace Mr Rudd as prime minister, Robert Manne could have changed his article. He didn’t.
- I was a member of the La Trobe University Politics Department in 1974 when Robert Manne returned to Australia. A number of us who were on the La Trobe University staff at the time recall that in mid- 1974 Mr Manne was enthusiastic about Gough Whitlam.
This is consistent with Robert Manne’s own memory of himself. For example, in his essay titled “My Country: A Personal Journey”, which was published in The Alfred Deakin Lectures: Ideas for the Future of a Civil Society (ABC Books, 2001), Robert Manne wrote that he grew up in a Labor-voting family and followed his family’s political tradition. He added that in the 1970s he “became an enthusiast for the prospect of multiculturalism, which Gough Whitlam’s government pioneered”. Mr Whitlam led Labor at the 1969, 1972, 1974 and 1975 elections.
Mr Whitlam’s decision to recognise the Soviet Union’s annexation of the Baltic States was made in June 1974 - after the May 1974 election. Moreover, Mr Whitlam’s opposition to Vietnamese refugees also occurred during the Whitlam Government’s second term. By then, the Whitlam Government was in decline and on the way out. Robert Manne has said that he first voted for the Liberal Party in December 1975.
· In his column in The Age and the Sydney Morning Herald on 13 May 2002, Robert Manne had this to say about Paul Keating:
In essence, what Keating hoped to achieve was the creation of a fully independent republican Australia; freed from the sublimal influence on our thinkings of the British colonial inheritance; truly multicultural in sensibility; truly at home in the Asia-Pacific region; where the terrible injustices done to the Aborigines had been unambiguously acknowledged and the indigenous and non-indigenous peoples reconciled. Keating’s social vision for Australia seems to me both noble and right…
This sounds like Robert Manne was a fan of Paul Keating, don’t you think?
- For the record, in his email of 19 July 2010, Robert Manne invited MWD “to print this email exchange”. See Issue 62. Being ever courteous, MWD consented to Professor Manne’s request. And now Robert Manne lectures MWD for publishing “emails without their authors’ permission”. Nancy says - if you don’t want to get published in MWD, don’t go sending emails to her co-owner.
In conclusion, one final point. The problem with Robert Manne is that he has changed his political position so many times that he cannot remember his previous stances. MWD is happy to help out by reminding Professor Manne what he has previously written and said. This is done in the public interest - of course.
* * * * *
Until next time.