Gerard Henderson’s Media Watch Dog

GERARD HENDERSON’S MEDIA WATCH DOG - ISSUE NO. 13

5 JUNE 2009

STOP PRESS - ABC NOW IN “RIGHT-TO-SAY-NO” COALITION

It’s not so long ago that ABC managing director Mark Scott joined the public broadcaster up to the Right-to-Know Coalition.  Wacko and so on.  However, following the controversy over The Chaser’s very latest kick-down stunt, the ABC has refused to provide MWD with the following information:

▪ Was The Chaser’s stunt about terminally ill children approved by Kim Dalton (Director of ABC TV) or Amanda Duthie (ABC Head of Arts, Entertainment and Comedy) or by Rob Simpson (ABC Director, Legal Services)?

This is a straight forward question.  Alas, at the time of MWD being up-loaded on the web, there has been no straight-forward ABC answer.

NANCY‘S “SEND THE BOYS TO MECCA” FINANCE DRIVE

Amanda Duthie (ABC Head of Arts, Entertainment and Comedy) invariably refers to The Chaser Team as “The Boys’.  And, as experience tells us, boys will be boys.  It was only a matter of time before Julian Morrow, executive producer of The Chaser’s War on Everything, decided that hospitalised children with terminal illnesses were a suitable target for what he and his colleagues term “black humour”.  Last Wednesday’s stunt - in St Vincent’s Private Hospital in Sydney - caused outrage.  Prime Minister Kevin Rudd has declared that The Boys should “hang their heads in shame”. And ABC managing director Mark Scott has decided to set up an inquiry as to how it all came to this.

Here’s a good idea. Why not put Nancy on the panel?  After all it was MWD who predicted the third series of The Chaser’s War on Everything would only escalate its kick-down jokes.  The first edition, which aired on Wednesday 27 May, contained stunts directed at disabled in wheelchairs, breast cancer victims and black female victims of KKK lynchings.  So no one should have been surprised when last Wednesday’s show made fun of the dying young.  There was also a skit about an actor playing the part of a wheelchair bound homosexual muscular dystrophy sufferer who becomes a victim of the Holocaust during the Warsaw Ghetto.  What could be funnier that that?

Nancy could bring a special insight to Mr Scott’s committee of inquiry.  After all, she is well aware that The Boys started off seeing the funny side of child sexual assault and murder eons ago.  As long ago as 2000, when The Boys were 20 somethings, they thought up the you-beaut idea of turning the sexual assault and murder of British school girls Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman into a joke about the fact that when, the pair were abducted, both girls were wearing Manchester United shirts containing the Vodofone logo.  In September 2000, The Chaser newspaper ran a heading which declared: “Vodafone Admits: Latest Stunt Went Too Far.” What could be blacker humour that that?  So, The Boys have invariably found that the suffering and death of children to be a suitable subject for comedy. Unlike ABC management, Nancy knows this.

Nancy also has a special insight into how ABC management handles The Boys - at least until there was one Chaser stunt too far and the inevitable ABC inquiry was set up.

The fact is that The Chaser stunts - including trespass, violations of security regulations and jokes at the dying young - are invariably approved in advance by ABC TV (headed by Kim Dalton ) and ABC Legal Services (headed by Rob Simpson). They or their off-siders give a tick to The Chaser’s stunts which go to air.  As in:

-      The Chaser: “Let’s fly a blimp within restricted air space in Vatican City”.

ABC Management: “Tick”.

-      The Chaser: “Let’s make fun of the dying young by setting up a stunt at St Vincent’s Private Hospital”.

ABC Management: “Tick”.

The same provision applies to other aspects of ABC comedy. As in John Safran: “Can I be crucified in the Philippines?”

ABC Management: “Tick”.

Nancy is aware that the best long term solution to The Chaser “issue” is not to limit their scope but, rather, to encourage The Boys to be braver.  If appointed to Mr Scott’s committee of enquiry, Nancy would put up the following proposal: “Let’s send the Chaser Boys to Mecca and encourage them to make a joke about the Prophet, senior Islamic imams and young Saudi Arabian cancer victims at the Masjid al-Haram.”

Mr Simpson should be willing to give “The Tick” to such a proposal.  And there would be certain advantages for Mr Dalton and the public broadcaster’s budget - since only one-way air tickets would be necessary.

All donations go to “Nancy’s Send The Boys to Mecca” fund-raiser should be sent to Nancy at The Kennel, 41 Phillip Street, Sydney.  [We're working on tax deductibility status - the Prime Minister might be of assistance here, Ed].

BOB ELLIS CONFESSES: “I’M A GRUMPY, PRATTLING MUPPET”

Bob Ellis may still owe Gerard Henderson $250 for failed wagers, but Louis Nowra’s critique of his 563 page tome And So It Went: Night Thoughts in a Year of Change as mere “piss and wind” seems somewhat harsh. The Nowra critique is contained in the current edition of The Australian Literary Review. After all, Ellis’ tome has some significant insights - mainly into himself.   First, there is the self-belief of the False Prophet in comparing himself to both Winston Churchill and Abraham Lincoln. And then there is the historical insight that Kim Beazley and Labor would have won the 1998 election if only the Courier Mail in Brisbane had not spiked a column which Ellis had expected would be published on the morning of the poll.  All worth Viking’s $35 cover price, surely.

In Crikey last Tuesday your man Ellis complained that he was depicted by his critics as “a grumpy prattling muppet”. [How could such a travesty ever have occurred? - Ed].

And he also whinged that, wait for it, a certain entity best described as “THEY” talks too much at literary functions panels in which he participates and so limits his air-time. The False Prophet’s solution is to “shame” all Liberals, and those whom he suspects are Liberals, “out of public life”.  This would make it possible for your man’s next tome to be extended to, say, 1000 pages and for him to be given an extra five minutes or so on the ABC2 Fora program.

The good news is that The False Prophet is still on the payroll of South Australian Premier Mike Rann - which should make it possible for him to pay his continuing obligations as a serial debtor.

THE TWO PHILLLIP ADAMS(ES)

Another leftie much admired by the South Australian Labor government is Phillip Adams, who has recently been appointed as chairman of the taxpayer funded Australian Centre for Social Innovation.  This week PA told his ABC Radio National Late Night Live listeners how he had arisen at 5.30 am to catch a plane to Adelaide for a board meeting of the said centre - but arrived ill and had to return to Sydney on the next available flight.  How about that? Hold the front page - and so on.

Phillip Adams’ Tuesday column in The Australian appears to have disappeared without trace - or even interest.  But he still writes a weekly piece for The Weekend Australian Magazine.  Usually about not very much at all.  Which raises an interesting point. Why are there two PAs in the Australian media?

Adams The First presents LNL four nights a week.  He is well informed when interviewing guests - citing books, mentioning articles and blog sites and generally appearing well read.  And then there is Adams The Second, who gets paid by proprietor Rupert Murdoch each week.  Adams The Second’s column rarely refers to a book or an article or a website - which suggests that he reads little, if anything.  It is dictated off-the-top of Phillip’s head to a recorder and invariably ends up on the printed page fact-free.

So, what explains the difference between Adams The First and Adams The Second? Well, Adams the First has a six person strong production/research staff at LNL who do virtually all his work.  But Adams The Second is on his own - and it shows.  As in “Look Reader, no facts, no research, just opinion”.

It seems that PA is currently suffering from the psychological phenomenon of projection.  In The Weekend Australian Magazine on 16-17 May 2009, he wrote that Gerard Henderson’s column in The Sydney Morning Herald is identical each week and that it attacked “either Robert Manne, the ABC or me”.  It was pointed out to Adams that Henderson has never devoted a SMH column to attacking Manne or Adams and that Henderson had written about the ABC on only a few occasions since the commencement of 2007. By the way, both Adams and Manne have written entire articles attacking Henderson is their newspaper columns.

Phillip Adams was asked to provide evidence to support his allegation.  His only reply was: “A stifled yawn”.   Almost 24 hours later he cited just six columns over seven years. Three of the dates were completely wrong and the remaining three columns contained only brief references to Robert Manne and Phillip Adams.

Apparently such scholarship is enough to win a gig as chairman of South Australia’s very own Adelaide based Australian Centre for Social Innovation which is intended to provide thinking power in the City of Churches. This is a task for Adams The First.  But, alas, Premier Mike Rann has appointed Adams The Second to this most coveted position.

NANCY‘S PICK OF THE WEEK

Nance Haxton’s “Don’t Mention The Taliban” Interview

This time round Nancy was just so impressed with her namesake Nance Haxton’s fawning interview with Shazia Shakib of the Revolutionary Association of Women of Afghanistan (RAWA).  Except that it wasn’t really Ms Shakib at all.  This is a nom-de-plume - for the obvious reason that she is concerned about being murdered by the Taliban when she returns home.  Except you will never realise this by listening to the interview, which ended as follows. Nance Haxton even suggested that her interviewee might be at risk Down Under for criticising the Allied cause in Afghanistan. Really. Let’s go to the audio tape:

NANCE HAXTON: There’s been a lot of publicity here in Australia about Australian troops in Afghanistan and what they’ve been achieving. What’s the thoughts on Australian troops in Afghanistan on the ground?

SHAZIA SHAKIB: Because they are following the US policy in Afghanistan, so I think it’s bad. They are having hand in the war crimes against people. They’re not really supporting, they’re not giving security for Afghan people, because in the last eight years proved that there’s not positive change for Afghan people.  Last year we had an incident that in Uruzghan they bombed and about five children were killed by their attacks; the Australian troops. So, mmm, I think they should have their independent policy in Afghanistan. They should support, really, the Afghan people - not follow the US policy.

NANCE HAXTON: Are you taking a risk even speaking in Australia? Is that part of the reason you’ve had to obscure your identity as well?

SHAZIA SHAKIB: Coming to Australia it’s not risky inside Australia. But if in Afghanistan, people know that I’m a RAWA member and I go outside talking the real things, then it will be very dangerous for me.

Talk about a cop-out. Ms Haxton wanted to focus on (alleged) Australian atrocities in Afghanistan. And Ms Shakib refrained from acknowledging that the only force protecting her from servitude, or death, at the hands of the Taliban is the Afghan Army which is supported by the United States led NATO forces - including members of the Australian Defence Force.

AMANDA MEADE AS KERRY O’BRIEN’S APOLOGIST

In her “The Diary” column in “The Media” section of The Australian each Monday, Amanda Meade is forever lecturing journalists, columnists and the like about journalistic standards.  Last Monday she got all-in-a tizz about MWD’s comment (in Issue 12)  that Kerry O’Brien’s age is something of a secret.  The following correspondence is published below as an example of “The Diary’s” own journalistic standards - or lack of same:

Email From Gerard Henderson To Amanda Meade - 3 June 2009

Amanda

I refer to your comment piece “Watch dog needs muzzling” published in “The Diary” on Monday 1 June 2009.  I was surprised that you appear to advocate less comment on the media - but such is life. In your piece you objected to my claim that Kerry O’Brien’s age is something of a state secret and claimed that “his age is on the public record”. I would be grateful if you would advise precisely where Mr O’Brien’s date of birth is on the public record.

Kerry O’Brien does not cite a date of birth in his entry in Who’s Who in Australia. Moreover, the biographical details about Kerry O’Brien on the 7.30 Report’s website do not record either his age or the fact that he once worked for Gough Whitlam. So I ask: Where on the “public record” is there reference to Mr O’Brien’s age?  Here’s hoping for a prompt response.

Best wishes

Gerard Henderson

* * * * *

Email From Amanda Meade To Gerard Henderson - 3 June 2009

Subject: O’Brien’s age: O’Brien willingly told us his age in 2006, see below.  And his birthdate is on Wikipedia here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerry_O%27Brien_(journalist)

Article attached:  “Milestones for the host we trust the most” - by Amanda Meade in The Australian 15 June 2006.

* * * * *

Email From Gerard Henderson To Amanda Meade - 3 June 2009

For someone who lectures others about journalistic standards, I am genuinely surprised that you regard Wikipedia as an authoritative source on the public record.  It is nothing of the kind.  Wikipedia has its uses but it can be notoriously inaccurate and its many authors are effectively anonymous.

If Mr O’Brien wanted others to know his age he would put it in his Who’s Who entry (which he prepares) or arrange to have this material placed on the 7.30 Report website. As to your fawning profile of Kerry O’Brien in “Media” on 15 June 2006, saying that someone is “at 60″ is not evidence of a date of birth on the public record.  You should be able to do better than this.

Gerard Henderson

* * * * *

Email From Amanda Meade To Gerard Henderson - 3 June 2009

Gerard

I did not rely on Wikipeda for my information, I simply point it out to you as one source. O’Brien told me his birth date in the interview, and I [sic] it is certainly not a state secret. By the way, you [sic] age is not in your bio either.

* * * * *

Email From Gerard Henderson To Amanda Meade - 3 June 2009

Amanda

You are shifting ground.  In “The Diary” on Monday you wrote that Kerry O’Brien’s age is on the public record.  When I asked you where this information could be located on the public record, your only reference was to Wikipedia.  Your 2006 article in “The Australian” did not refer to Mr O’Brien’s date of birth and, consequently, is not a source for his age.

In your recent email you assert that my age is not on my “bio either”.  This is a lazy, ignorant comment. You should be aware that the principal source of biographical data in Australia is Who’s Who in Australia.  If you bothered to check this, you would know that my date of birth is published in Who’s Who. The fact is that virtually all individuals listed in Who’s Who provide their date of birth - Kerry O’Brien is a rare exception.

I repeat my gratuitous advice.  Only a fool regards Wikipedia as an authoritative source for information on the public record.  Only a lazy journalist makes personal allegations about age without even a glimpse at Who’s Who.

Best wishes

Gerard Henderson

* * * * *

Email From Amanda Meade To Gerard Henderson - 3 June 2009

This is so boring and tedious. I will say only this: Kerry O’Brien is 63 and I know this because he told me wen [sic] he was born in a profile interview. That fact was published in the Oz, which makes it on the public record.

* * * * *

Email From Gerard Henderson To Amanda Meade - 3 June 2009

I don’t intend to continue the correspondence.  But I would recommend that in future you have a glance at Who’s Who which does provide birth dates, where they are submitted, on the public record.  If Kerry O’Brien did this he would not need you as his apologist.

Best wishes

Gerard Henderson

* * * * *

That’s all for now.