Media Watch Dog: Climate change zealot Matt Kean bashes nuclear power - again - on Q+A, as we all suffer the cost of his renewables delusion
Ex-NSW Treasurer Matt Kean had the gall to bash his own party's nuclear policy just days before the voters he used to represent learned of the disastrous consequences of his renewable energy agenda, writes Gerard Henderson.
STOP PRESS
- UNITED NATIONS' CHRIS SIDOTI’S VERY OWN OFFENSIVE LANGUAGE
The left-wing Australian Chris Sidoti got a soft run on ABC Radio National Breakfast when interviewed by Sally Sara on Friday 14 March.
Currently Commissioner of Inquiry on the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Sidoti reported to the United Nations Human Rights Council about the situation in Gaza.
Needless to say, Sidoti’s report was highly critical of Israel. This is how the interview ended:
Sally Sara: Just finally, the Israeli government says that your office is anti-Semitic, and the allegations in these incidents are false. Did the Israeli government take part in the investigations behind this report?
Chris Sidoti: The Israeli government, from the very beginning of our Commission in 2021, has refused to cooperate with us in any way. On the contrary, it obstructs our work at every opportunity. We nonetheless consistently reach out to the Israeli Government and seek to engage with it. We provide copies of all reports, including this report, in draft form, about a month before they're finalised. So, the Israeli authorities had every opportunity to come back to us, to disagree with anything in the draft, to provide alternative evidence if it wished to do so, or simple argument. But it failed to do so. So, it's a bit much now, four weeks after they get the report, to attack it. But it's significant that they haven't attacked the substance of the report. They've just descended to their usual scaremongering and offensive language. They lie constantly, and this is another example of it.
So, there you have it.
Mr Sidoti accused the Israeli government of scaremongering and using offensive language.
He then went on to accuse Israel of constantly lying.
How offensive is that?
And how unprofessional.
THE QUESTION TO AMBASSADOR RUDD THAT SARAH FERGUSON DID NOT ASK
Dr Kevin Rudd, Australia’s ambassador to the United States, performed well when interviewed by Sarah Ferguson on ABC TV’s 7.30 on Thursday 13 March.
He explained the motivation of President Donald J. Trump and his administration for its decisions on the implementation of tariffs and other matters.
As Dr Rudd put it: “The administration is more nationalist on questions of foreign policy, more protectionist on trade policy and more transactional in its overall approach to international negotiations.”
Peter Dutton’s Opposition is perfectly entitled to state that when the Coalition was in government in 2018 and Joe Hockey was Australia’s ambassador to the US, Australia successfully negotiated a “carve out” with respect to the implementation of tariffs on Australian exports of aluminium and steel.
And Ambassador Rudd is perfectly entitled to say that times have changed and nothing would have been different if President Trump had agreed to take a final call from Prime Minister Anthony Albanese.
But there was an omission.
Without being unprofessional, Sarah Ferguson could have asked Kevin Rudd whether he regretted his past comments that President Trump was “nuts”, “the most destructive president in history”, “a traitor to the West” and more besides.
Ambassador Rudd could have handled such a question and his answer would have been worth hearing.
It’s hard to imagine that, if a former Coalition prime minister – like Scott Morrison – had been appointed Australian ambassador to the US during the time of President Joe Biden, Ms Ferguson would not have raised with Morrison any abusive comments he could have made about President Biden before taking up the post.
But there you go.
CAN YOU BEAR IT?
- THE AGE BAGS A CLIVE PALMER ADVERTISEMENT IT RAN ON PAGE ONE AS UNHELPFUL AND PROVOCATIVE. REALLY.
Did anyone read The Age’s editorial on 12 March titled “The recurring irritant of Australian politics has returned”?
It began: “When Donald Trump was re-elected in November, the man Clive Palmer put in federal politics saw his moment”.
The reference was to the not well-known Ralph Babet who won a Victorian Senate seat in the 2022 election for Clive Palmer’s (so-called) United Australia Party which is now called the Trumpet of Patriots.
The Age comprehensively bagged Clive Palmer and Babet and all their works and all their pomps.
It described Palmer as “the recurring irritant of Australian politics” and “a persistent wart on the foot of Australian politics”.
And there was this:
The Newcastle Herald and The Australian newspapers both ran Palmer advertisements on Tuesday claiming “there are only two genders”. Later that day, The Newcastle Herald apologised for running the ad. The same ad appears on page one of The Age on Wednesday. The claim in the advertisement, made without context or nuance, is simplistic and hurtful to many. Transgender Victoria has called on Palmer’s party to retract the “dangerous and hateful ad”, as reported by this masthead. The ad is an unhelpful and provocative contribution to the national discussion that this masthead does not endorse. While it is not this company’s approach to censor political viewpoints in paid advertisements, The Age refuses to allow Palmer – or other billionaires and politicians – to avoid criticism and scrutiny by mounting an election campaign via unchallenged advertising slogans. We will continue to criticise and scrutinise in our editorial coverage, as we do today, throughout the election campaign.
So, there you have it.
The Age condemns Palmer’s “There Are Only Two Genders – Male and Female” advertisement which ran in two newspapers in Sydney.
ButThe Age ran the same advertisement on Wednesday – only to take the moral high ground and complain about the advertisement that The Age itself had published.
Here are two questions.
Has The Age returned the money it received from The Trumpet of Patriots for the advertisement which it now claims is “unhelpful and provocative”?
As to the post facto moralising: Can You Bear It?
[No, not really, now that you ask. As you may remember, Media Watch Dog used to call The Age “The Guardian on the Yarra”. Until the real Guardian came to town from London via Manchester. As to The Age’s claim that it will not “censor political viewpoints in paid advertisements” – Tell that to the Marines, as the saying goes. – MWD Editor.]
- THE SYDNEY MORNING HERALD OVERLOOKS THE FACT THAT PETER DUTTON IS IN OPPOSITION AND CANNOT DO MUCH ABOUT MANAGING RESPONSES TO CYCLONES
While on the topic of Nine Newspapers, on March 11 the Sydney Morning Herald ran an article by Natassia Chrysanthos titled: “Timeline of Dutton’s travels as tropical cyclone Alfred hovered”.
It appears that the SMH’s federal reporter picked up the Labor Party’s line that Opposition leader Peter Dutton had been remiss in travelling to Sydney as Cyclone Alfred approached south-east Queensland.
She traced Peter Dutton’s movements from Brisbane to Sydney on Tuesday 4 March and his return early in the morning of Wednesday 5 March.
This is how the report commenced:
Almost a week ago, as tropical cyclone Alfred was approaching the east coast and Queenslanders began sandbagging their homes, Opposition Leader Peter Dutton arrived in Sydney and attended a fundraiser at a billionaire’s waterside mansion. Questions about when he flew in and out of his home state, and whether he misled Australians about his whereabouts as a potential disaster loomed, have dogged Dutton since. This is what we know about the timeline of events.
It’s understandable why the Labor Party ran the “Dutton abandoned Queensland” line – after all, that’s politics.
But the fact is that Dutton did cut his trip short to be back in Brisbane on Wednesday morning.
The expected cyclone was downgraded to a tropical low and did not make landfall until late Friday/early Saturday.
And there’s another point.
Nowhere in Comrade Chrysanthos’ story was the point made that Peter Dutton is the leader of the federal Opposition.
He is not a member of the Commonwealth or Queensland governments and, consequently, was not in a position to make decisions with respect to the cyclone.
In short, this report was just a media hatchet job – with side attacks on billionaires and harbourside mansions to titillate the SMH’s teal-wearing ABC listening types.
Can You Bear It?
- LA TINGLE JOINS DAVID MARR IN A SNEER AT PETER DUTTON
How’s David Marr going?
Media Watch Dog readers want to know.
Well, he’s a fine broadcaster and well-informed.
But Late Night Live remains Late Night Left.
On Mondays, the left-of-centre Laura Tingle reports on Australian politics.
On Tuesdays, the left-of-centre Bruce Shapiro reports on United States politics.
Then on Wednesdays… you get the picture.
La Tingle’s report on Monday 10 March was focused overwhelmingly on Peter Dutton – who was bagged relentlessly for not having policies.
Tingle even bought into the issues of the Opposition leader’s travel – and had this to say – in a sneering way.
Let’s go to the transcript:
David Marr: But at least Peter Dutton has cleaned up the furphy that he was somehow enjoying himself in Sydney rather than dutifully looking at flood waters rising in Queensland.
Laura Tingle: It wasn't a party, David. It was a fundraising dinner – which is, you know, work, I think, is the argument. And besides which, Peter Dutton had a whole series of other events, including lunch with an Archbishop on the same day. Now look, sometimes people think this stuff's a little bit petty, that we should be focusing on bigger issues. But I'll tell you what, those sorts of images of a politician leaving their electorate, which is, you know, in the eye of a cyclone, or, sorry, in the, in the path of a cyclone, to go to Sydney, to hobnob by the Harbour, is, is one of those things that does cut through even to voters that aren't paying too much attention to politics.
David Marr:...But Laura, we shall move on. How is Dutton's sort of chum act with Donald Trump going?
And so it went on.
And on. Can You Bear It? [I seem to recall that not so long ago La Tingle was reported as having hobnobbed at a Sydney harbourside mansion.- MWD Editor.]
- AT ADELAIDE WRITERS’ WEEK REBECCA HUNTLEY THROWS $BILLIONS TO THE WINDS IN HER ATTACK ON THE MINING INDUSTRY
There was enormous interest in Media Watch Dog’s coverage of what was the leftist stack at the 2025 Adelaide Writers’ Week.
See MWD dated 31 January and 7 March.
Readers were particularly interested in the session on Saturday 1 March titled “The State of the Nation”.
It was presented by David Marr, and the panel comprised Bob Carr, Rebecca Huntley and Rick Morton – all of whom these days are left-of-centre comrades.
Needless to say, everyone essentially agreed with everyone else on essentially everything in a left-of-centre kind of way.
As Media Watch Dog readers will recall, this AWW session was run on ABC Radio National Late Night Live (aka “Late Night Left”) on Monday 3 March.
Lotsa thanks to the avid reader who drew MWD’s attention to this comment made by Rebecca Huntley at the AWW which was subsequently carried on Late Night Live:
Rebecca Huntley: I've spent years trying to get the Australian public to realise the full travesty of the government subsidies we give to the fossil fuel industry. I've spent a lot of time trying to explain that to people. So, you'll say, “okay, well, Chevron, how many people do you think it employs?” “Oh, tens of thousands of people”. And you tell them how many people they actually employ in Australia and it's not that much. How much tax do you think they pay? “Oh, you know, quite a lot of tax”. And you say, “Do you know they don't pay any tax?
No-one corrected Comrade Huntley’s rant either at Adelaide Writers’ Week or before it was broadcast on Late Night Left.
And what are the facts?
As Comrade Huntley probably does not know, companies pay the tax determined by the Australian Tax Office.
Sometimes company tax is not paid in a financial year since it is written off by investments.
It is true that Chevron was criticised for paying either very little or no tax in Australia for several years – for instance, only $30 million for the financial year 2021-22.
But for the 2022-23 financial year, Chevron Australia paid over $4.2 billion in income tax.
So, Rebecca Huntley’s assertion that Chevron does not pay any tax was hopelessly wrong.
Chevron paid over $4.2 billion in company tax in 2022-23.
But, at a literary festival, a $1 billion here and a $4 billion there is nothing at all.
After all, the Adelaide Writers’ Week is a left-wing stack financed by personal and company taxpayers – including the Mining Industry.
But no one corrected Comrade Huntley’s error-filled rant.
Can You Bear It?
NEW FEATURE: WAITING FOR THE DOCTOR (HEWSON)
JOHN HEWSON’S SEARCH TO FIND A CONSERVATIVE AT THE ABC YET TO YIELD RESULTS
There has been enormous interest in John Hewson’s article in The [Boring] Saturday Paper on 22 February where the former Liberal Party leader made this claim in defence of the taxpayer funded public broadcaster:
Another criticism of the ABC often repeated in the Coalition party rooms is that of left-wing bias.
This view is widely championed by the ever-so-angry Gerard Henderson.
The columnist raises it at any opportunity in his opinions for The Australian, and now for the Sydney Institute’s “Media Watch Dog” column, in a contest with Murdoch’s minion, presenter Andrew Bolt.
Henderson is a serial critic of the ABC, frothing that “the ABC is a conservative-free zone”.
As someone who’s been on the receiving end of rigorous ABC reporting, I have never believed that there was a perceptible left-wing bias, but rather, in terms of the demands of their charter, they sought balance and truth. The staff is made up of a diversity of views, which is both important and valuable….
Ellie’s male co-owner has invited Dr Hewson (for a doctor he is) to name one conservative presenter, producer or editor on any of the ABC’s television, radio or online outlets.
One will do.
He has not accepted the challenge.
Here’s the scoreboard:
Number of weeks since John Hewson claimed that the ABC was not a Conservative Free Zone – four.
Number of weeks since John Hewson has declined to name one Conservative at the ABC – three.
We’ll keep you posted.
OUTSIDE INSIDERS
As avid readers are well aware, a certain William (Bill) Thompson – a Melburnian who identifies as the ABC’s Southbank Correspondent – set up the “Outside Insiders” video segment some years ago.
This is a print edition of the Bill Thompson initiative to report on the ABC TV Insiders program from the outside.
Insiders fled Melbourne for the (media) safety of the Canberra Bubble and, consequently, is now loose from the troublesome Mr Thompson.
[Maybe that’s why Insiders junked Melbourne – just a thought. Perhaps Speersy and the team could relocate to River Yarra country since it appears Mr Thompson may have taken his camera overseas. – MWD Editor.]
GARY ADSHEAD CRITICISES THE WA LIBERAL PARTY FOR FAILING TO OPPOSE A MOTOR SPORT STREET CIRCUIT IN BURSWOOD PARK – WHILE KATINA CURTIS & DAVID SPEERS ENTER ELECTORAL CONFUSION
As anyone who has worked in politics – as a parliamentarian or as a staffer knows – it is a very difficult profession.
Whether in government or in opposition.
So, Hendo was very interested to see what the ABC TV Insiders panel had to say about the Western Australian state election on Sunday 9 March – the morning after the election night before.
David (“I like to be called Speersy”) Speers was in the presenter’s chair.
And, on the couch were Gary Adshead (ABC Radio Perth’s Drive program), Katina Curtis (The West Australian, based in Canberra) and Jane Norman (ABC national affairs correspondent, based in Canberra).
So it was very much an occasion of Canberra-based journalists talking to each other about politics – plus a Perth-based journalist.
Three out of the quartet were ABC journalists.
Discussion turned on Premier Roger Cook’s successful campaign – which saw the Labor Party perform well, while the Opposition did not do as well as hoped.
No one expected a Labor defeat in view of its decisive win at the previous election, but the Liberal Party and National Party did not do as well as they had hoped.
Early on, Speersy threw the discussion to the Perth-based Gary Adshead. Let’s go to the transcript:
David Speers: Where did the Liberals go wrong? And where did Labor go right?
Gary Adshead: Well, they [the Liberals] went wrong because they weren't bold enough. I mean, quite frankly, it was a pedestrian campaign. It was safe, it was vanilla, it was boring. There were even moments when they had an opportunity to actually pivot and achieve something. Have a look at the swing against Hannah Beazley in Victoria Park. You know why? Because Labor had come out and said they're going to build a V8 supercar street circuit there. The Victoria Park electorate residents went nuts. Did you see Libby Mettam take her party to Burswood Park and stand there and say: “If you don't want this V8 supercar circuit, there's only one vote you can give”? No, there was nothing imaginative about it. It was just, let's try and get back the 12 seats perhaps to give us some credibility going forward. Instead, they are now looking at a further two terms, possibly out of power.
What a load of absolute tosh.
In the 2021 election, Labor’s Hannah Beazley in Victoria Park won 77.8 per cent of the total vote after preferences.
In short, Victoria Park was a very safe Labor seat.
As it turned out, in 2025 Ms Beazley won some 46 per cent of the primary vote with the Greens scoring 20.5 per cent and the Liberals 26.4 per cent (up 10 per cent from 2021).
The Cook government promised, if elected, to spend $217 million at Burswood Park (in the Victoria Park electorate) – including a facility for a motor sport street circuit.
Some residents – of the not-in-my-backyard ethos – objected to the project, especially those based in the inner-city East Perth part of the electorate.
This was reflected in the decline in Beazley’s vote.
But she still had a comfortable victory.
According to Gary Adshead – who appears to have never worked in politics – the Liberal Party leader Libby Mettam should have strongly opposed the motorsport proposal – irrespective of its merits.
This despite the fact that the Liberals had no chance of winning Victoria Park.
Moreover, Adshead overlooks the possibility that the motor sport proposal might be popular in electorates other than Victoria Park.
In short, journalist Adshead reckons that the Opposition should oppose for the sake of opposing.
There are many reasons why the Liberal Party has performed poorly at the state level over recent years – including the fact that they do not stand for much.
But opposition to a motor sport circuit in Burswood Park is not the mountain to die on (as the cliché goes).
Earlier, Katina Curtis had this to say:
Katina Curtis: …The Liberals, I mean, the rule of thumb everyone was saying to me over the last couple of weeks – Labor and Liberals – was they expected the Libs would pick up 10 seats. Which could be somewhere between 8 and 12. They haven't got anywhere near that.
As of the time Media Watch Dog went out, the Liberal Party could pick up between eight and 10 seats, which indicates that Curtis’ analysis was flawed.
It’s unwise to make predictions about undecided seats.
Soon after, Speersy had this to say:
David Speers: …Winning a third term is getting increasingly difficult, whether you're talking about State, and certainly the Federal level, hasn't happened for a long time.
Sure, Insiders went to air at 9 am Australian Eastern Daylight Saving Time – which was 6 am in Perth.
Even so, Speersy could have remembered that, at the Federal level, the Coalition won elections in 2013, 2016 and 2019.
That seems like the Coalition cementing a third term.
As recently as six years ago – which is not so long ago.
DOCUMENTATION
MATT KEAN RECYCLES AN OLD ANTI-COAL JOKE TO BASH NUCLEAR POWER
On Monday 10 March ABC TV’s Q+A featured Matt Kean, former NSW Treasurer and Energy Minister, now chair of the Climate Change Authority.
Joining the ex-politician on the panel were current politicians Mark Butler (Labor) & Hollie Hughes (Liberal), as well as media figures Parnell Palme McGuinness & Joe Hildebrand.
As usual Patricia Karvelas sat in the presenter’s chair.
Matt Kean was formerly a senior minister in the Coalition government in New South Wales.
In 2024 he announced he was leaving NSW parliament, and days later he was announced as the next chair of the Climate Change Authority by Anthony Albanese.
He has since taken a position at a climate investment firm and has been critical of the Federal Coalition’s nuclear energy proposal.
An exchange about the federal Liberal Party’s plan, if elected, to build nuclear power stations in Australia, found Kean, Butler & Hildebrand on one side of the debate and Hughes & McGuinness on the other.
No points for guessing who was pro the Liberal plan and who was against it.
Let’s go to the transcript:
Matt Kean: People talking about building nuclear today are the same people that are, sort of, arguing that we should be building a Blockbuster Video complex when Netflix is already here.
For those too young (or too forgetful) to remember, Blockbuster Video was a movie rental chain which went bankrupt in 2010.
The line earned applause from the reliably-lefty Q+A audience, who are always keen to celebrate a cheap dig, as long as it’s directed at conservatives.
For what it’s worth this isn’t a new line from Kean, he’s been trotting it out since at least 2020, though at that time he was using it in regard to new coal-fired power plants.
And in 2019 he made a very similar remark about Kodak cameras and iPhones, which he went on to repeat many times.
As for the idea that nuclear power is a technology comparable to movie rentals or film photography, that’s just tosh.
Countries around the world rely on nuclear power and in many cases are building new nuclear plants.
France has long relied on nuclear as its primary source of power and is planning new reactors.
China currently has 29 reactors under construction.
In the US, Silicon Valley tech companies are planning to build nuclear reactors to feed their power-hungry AI projects.
Meanwhile, this year energy customers in New South Wales, where Matt Kean served as Minister for Energy from April 2019 to March 2023, are going to see price hikes higher than those in other Australian states.
On Thursday 13 March Aidan Morrison, Director of Energy Research at the Centre for Independent Studies, appeared on Sky News’ Credlin.
He was interviewed by Caleb Bond, who was filling in for Peta Credlin that night.
When asked by Bond what was causing the NSW price hike, here is what Aidan Morrison had to say:
Aidan Morrison: What it probably is the fault of, at least in New South Wales’s case, is Kean, Matt Kean. This is the first time we've seen the actual costs flow through from the renewables energy program, the big New South Wales electricity roadmap that he produced, it's a signature piece of legislation when he was Energy Minister.
And for the first time, we're seeing how those costs will actually flow through to consumers.
At the moment, about half a billion dollars annually is assumed to be transferred to New South Wales consumers based on infrastructure like the Central-West Orana Renewable Energy Zone.
Which is nowhere near yet constructed, or the renewable energy zone in New England, which is nowhere near yet constructed.
There could also be other costs passed on, including subsidies and underwriting for battery schemes and wind farms and solar farms that don't have a full commercial contract that covers their costs.
These are the subsidy schemes that have been put in place, and now we're just starting to see the cost creep into consumers bills, and they probably account for a couple of percentage points of why New South Wales sticks out above the rest.
It would seem, on current evidence, that part of Mr Kean’s legacy as Energy Minister is electricity price hikes for NSW residents.
ECONOMICS CORNER
PETER MARTIN’S WEIRD VIEW ABOUT HOW INFLATION CAN BE REDUCED & WHY TAXES ARE PAID
It was Hangover Time on Monday 10 March.
Having walked Ellie (or was it the other way around?), Hendo turned on ABC Radio National Breakfast.
Sally (“I walk my dog so I can avoid criticism”) Sara was in the presenter’s chair.
And she was interviewing left-of-centre economist Peter Martin who has just returned to the taxpayer funded public broadcaster after six years at the left-of-centre online publication The Conversation.
As avid Media Watch Dog readers know only too well, Comrade Martin is one of those ABC types who, in the words of the Eagles’ song Hotel California, can check out of the ABC but can never leave.
Under the revamped RN Breakfast in 2025, Peter Martin makes about half a dozen appearances each morning discussing economics and business.
Melissa Clarke does the same on politics.
It would seem that RN Breakfast’s executive producer is of the view that the program’s listeners (if listeners there are) are not smart enough to understand interviews and have to have matters interpreted by the likes of Martin and Clarke.
In any event, on 10 March, Comrade Sara spoke to Comrade Martin about the Australian economic situation now that there will be a budget on 25 March.
This discussion took place around 6.30 am.
Peter Martin maintained that if the Albanese government delivers another round of cost-of-living relief, by means of a rebate of $300, it will lead to a decline in the rate of inflation.
Under the scheme, the government makes payments to energy companies which, in turn, reduce energy prices to consumers – devoid of a means test. In other words, the government uses taxpayers’ money to reduce the price of energy for a certain period of time.
On 25 March, and earlier on 13 February, Martin claimed that such rebates reduce inflation.
Well, in a sense they do – but only with respect to the headline rate.
Such rebates have no impact on reducing the underlying rate of inflation – the inflation measure preferred by the Reserve Bank of Australia.
Look at it this way.
If Peter Martin’s preferred measurement of inflation is the relevant one – then if a government provided rebates for fuel, groceries, insurance, energy and the like then the headline of inflation would be down to zero.
But other prices could still rise.
Peter Martin also told listeners that a continuation of the energy rebate could be afforded by the Albanese government since it had been “gifted” with an unexpected increase in revenue – on account of higher than expected income tax payments (due to bracket creep) and company tax.
It is estimated by economist Chris Richardson that the budget deficit will be lower than expected due to higher personal income and company taxes.
Turn it up.
Taxation is compulsory.
Individuals and companies do not “gift” money to consolidated revenue – they are compelled to pay their taxes.
Can an ABC economist be so ignorant about inflation and how taxes are regarded by taxpayers?
[As MWD has documented, your man Martin recently told RN Breakfast that when John Howard was prime minister “we were privatising the Commonwealth Bank, Telstra, NRMA”. In fact, it was the Hawke-Keating Labor government which privatised the Commonwealth Bank and Qantas – and NRMA was a mutual society and not capable of being sold by any government. See the previous issue of MWD. Could it be that Comrade Martin’s economic expertise declined due to his years at The Conversation? Just a thought. – MWD Editor.]
AN ABC UPDATE
NEWS BREAKFAST’S JAMES GLENDAY JOINS MWD’s CHORUS THAT THE ABC RESEMBLES HOTEL CALIFORNIA’S LYRICS
As avid Media Watch Dog readers know, for quite some time now Ellie’s (male) co-owner has been describing the ABC as akin to what The Eagles sang about in the song Hotel California.
That it is an institution, from which you can check out but you never leave.
The reference is to the number of ABC types who check out of the ABC but soon find their way back to the taxpayer funded public broadcaster’s payroll.
Recent examples include Fran (“I’m an activist”) Kelly and Peter Martin.
ABC TV’s News Breakfast has become increasingly dull in recent times and is not as newsworthy as Sky News.
Michael Rowland recently checked out as co-presenter of ABC TV News Breakfast. But, no doubt, he will be back on air in the future – in accordance with the teachings of Hotel California’s lyrics.
It would seem that James Glenday, Rowland’s replacement, is aware of the reality.
How else to explain this exchange which took place on News Breakfast on 12 March?
Let’s go to the transcript:
James Glenday: It is time to take an in-depth look at what's making news this morning. And it is a warm welcome back to News Breakfast's very own. Is that what we can call her now?
Bridget Brennan: Yeah, we've claimed her.
James Glenday: The host of the ABC's All in the Mind podcast, Sana Qadar. Good morning.
Sana Qadar: Hello, good morning. I'm honoured to be considered one of your own. Wow, that was one week only. But I'll take it.
Bridget Brennan: Of course.
James Glenday: You can check out, but you can never leave Sana, that's how it works here….
And so it does.
Which raises the question: Is your man Glenday a (closet) Media Watch Dog reader?
If so, WELCOME.
SKY NEWS’ THE MEDIA SHOW
On Fridays at 10pm on Sky News Australia, Gerard Henderson joins The MediaShow.
The below is an outline of this week’s discussion.
- When it looked as if Australia would not get a cave-out from the Trump administration’s decision to put a 25 per cent tariff on all steel and aluminium exports to the US from Australia, Peter Dutton criticised Prime Minister Albanese for not taking up the matter direct with President Trump. Former Liberal Party leader Turnbull supported Albanese. Melissa Clarke said this on RN Breakfaston 12 March:
Melissa Clarke: The Coalition has been priming the ground to lay the blame at the feet of the Albanese government… their argument is somewhat undercut by someone from their own side, former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull yesterday, saying whilst he was able to secure an exemption last Trump administration, that took over a year, and the circumstances this time are very different.
It's not so clear that Turnbull and Dutton are on the same side.
After all, the following exchange took place on ABC TV’s Nemesis documentary on 25 February 2024:
Mark Willacy: If I say the word Peter Dutton, what one word springs into your mind.
Malcolm Turnbull: Thug.
- On Wednesday 12 March Laura Tingle discussed the US/Australia controversy on ABC TV 7.30.
Laura Tingle : Australian politicians have expended a lot of oxygen and hyperbole over the years, extolling the virtues and depth of the special friendship we have with the United States. It has justified jumping on board American military adventures, hosting defence facilities and military bases, and more recently, an AUKUS alliance which makes us even more dependent on the US for our defence strategy. On the domestic political stage, the US alliance is played out in terms of school yard besties: Prime ministers are judged in terms of whether they are best mates with the president of the day.
Tingle is supposed to be a presenter – not an activist.
But these are the words of an activist.
She went on to criticise Peter Dutton.
Laura Tingle: If anyone should know about the difficulties of getting foreign leaders on the phone, it's the leader of the federal Coalition. When last in government, the Coalition was unable to get anyone in the Chinese Government to speak to Coalition ministers, for several years, about all the trade restrictions imposed on Australian products on its watch.
It's just barracking to compare an Australian leader failing to contact a US president, an ally, with the leadership of the Chinese Communist Party.
7.30 then proceeded to interview former NSW premier Bob Carr and Sydney University academic James Curran.
Both are critical of the Australian American Alliance in general and AUKUS in particular.
No other view was heard.
On Monday 10 March Four Corners did a critique of the War Memorial in Canberra, presented by Mark Willacy.
He interviewed people responsible for running the War Memorial – its chair Kim Beazley, its managing director Matt Anderson and a War Memorial Council member.
Four Corners then rolled out 10 critics of the War Memorial – particularly with respect to its redevelopment and the fact that it receives funds from the armaments industry.
Without acknowledging that without the armaments industry Australia would be defenceless.
The comments included:
Dr Sue Wareham: Redevelopment is, to put it bluntly, an abomination.
Peter Stanley: Now, I think that's dirty money. It should not be accepting money from merchants of death.
And this concerning Afghanistan:
Peter Stanley: The panel next to the display is to me, the most mealy-mouthed piece of writing the memorial's ever put up. It was completely inadequate because it didn't explain the moral vacuum that those soldiers had fallen into.
Mark Willacy interviewed a member of the Greens but no one from the Coalition.
The program lacked balance – led by Mark Willacy’s activist journalism.
* * * *
Until Next Time.
* * * *
Gerard Henderson is an Australian columnist, political commentator and the Executive Director of The Sydney Institute. His column Media Watch Dog is republished by SkyNews.com.au each Saturday morning. He started the blog in April 1988, before the ABC TV’s program of the same name commenced.