'Liberal bashing' SMH Letters editor serves Angus Taylor 'thigh-slapping" nickname straight from schoolyard

Sky News AU

18-07-2025

Read Gerard Henderson's Media Watch Dog column every Saturday morning on SkyNews.com.au
THE LATEST
MICHAEL MANSELL'S ANTI-ISRAEL RANT NOT CHALLENGED ON ABC TV NEWS BREAKFAST
The Tasmanian Aboriginal activist and lawyer Michael Mansell did the 'Newspaper' segment on ABC TV News Breakfast on Friday18 August. He made some interesting points about the forthcoming Tasmanian election. Not so much with reference to the Israel-Hamas War.
Let's go to the transcript:
Emma Rebellato: The second story you picked for us is on the Middle East and from The Guardian – an Israel strike on Gaza injures a priest. Tell us about that story.
Michael Mansell: Look, it's there's something very sad about the state of the world at the moment. In our lifetime, how can we sit idly by and watch 50,000 men, women and children being slaughtered in a war between Israel and Hamas? There's just something wrong about it. The West puts trade sanctions on Russia, quite rightly, for invading Ukraine. Why aren't the West doing the same thing with Israel? Why are we sitting idly by? And it also shows a weakness of the United Nations. The United Nations Security Council should be able to take action against Israel for what it's doing in Palestine, but it can't, because Russia can veto anything in Ukraine, the Americans can veto anything in Israel, and so reform is needed at the United Nations level.
Emma Rebellato: Okay, interesting take on it. And of course, the Australian government has consistently come out and said it's calling for a ceasefire. Let's talk about the Australian Government and what's going on at the moment….
Michael Mansell alleged that Israel has slaughtered 50,000 men, women and children in Gaza. He did not say that the figures come from the Gaza health authority which is controlled by the terrorist Hamas organisation. Nor did Mansell make it clear to viewers that the Gaza health authority does not distinguish between civilian and combatant deaths. Israel states that it has killed some 20,000 Hamas fighters.
Emma Rebellato did not challenge Mansell's 'slaughter' allegation and simply described his rant as an 'interesting take'. Journalists should be able to do better when serious allegations are made that are not supported by evidence.
CAN YOU BEAR IT? AFR INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS 'EXPERT' JAMES CURRAN TAKES ON SUPPORTERS OF THE AUSTRALIAN-AMERICAN ALLIANCE BUT LACKS THE INTELLECTUAL COURAGE TO NAME NAMES
Did anyone read the article by James Curran titled 'The PM will not cross Taiwan red line with China' in the Australian Financial Review on 14 July 2025? 'Professor' James Curran, if you don't mind – the AFR's international affairs expert is also the Professor of Modern History at the University of Sydney.
As avid Media Watch Dog readers will know, the learned professor is also somewhat of a fashionable left-of-centre guy. [Isn't that the case with nearly all academics in the social sciences these days? – MWD Editor.]
Your man Curran presents as an alienated intellectual who disapproves of Australia's past (since 1788) and present – and no doubt will do the same with respect to the future if Australia does not adopt his ideology.
But MWD digresses. The Curran article contained this sub-heading: 'If Anthony Albanese can be faulted, it is the government's erosion of Australian sovereignty by the blind extension of the American military footprint on our continent'. Yawn – yet another left-wing attack on the Australian-American alliance.
This is how Dr (for a doctor he is) Curran's rant in the AFR commenced:
In February this column remarked upon the astonishing submission to President Donald Trump's will in the United States and elsewhere: the capitulation of those in the firing line to his whims and ways. NATO Chief Mark Rutte's string of obsequious text messages to the US president at the recent summit in The Hague were but the latest exemplar of a new species in global diplomacy: the Trump toady. But there are now some who want the Australian prime minister to fall into that category, demanding he fall on his knees to the American president.
Somewhat serious charges to be sure. But who are the 'some' who want Prime Minister Anthony Albanese to 'fall on his knees' to President Donald J. Trump? What are their names?
Well, here is Professor Curran's 'little list'.
His targets are (i) some, (ii) they, (iii) these observers, (iv) the opposition leader, (v) media commentators, (vi) former ministers, (vii) former diplomats, (viii) those who are participants of [sic] the Australian-American Leadership Dialogue, (ix) those who have a material or financial interest via communications in Washington or commercial channels into the US military-industrial complex, (x) those same commentators or officials, and (xi) too many commentators.
How about that? Comrade Curran did not name one name. Not one. The only person who could be identified by Curran's little list was 'the Opposition Leader'. That is, Sussan Ley who is referred to as giving a 'shrill, emotional response' to Prime minister Anthony Albanese. Fancy that. You wonder what the feminist soviet at Sydney University will say about a bloke depicting a woman with whom he disagrees as 'shrill' and 'emotional'. [Nothing at all, I assume. – MWD Editor.]
To sum up. Professor Curran took advantage of Nine's newspapers to accuse 'too many commentators' who (allegedly) 'forsake Australian interests for American ones'. But he did not have the intellectual courage to identify one of them. Except for the Liberal Party leader Sussan Ley. Can You Bear It?
[No. Not at all. – now that you ask. I recall that MWD's History Corner on 13 June 2013 contained a valuable analysis of Professor Curran's left-wing interpretation of Australian history. – MWD Editor.] THE ANU'S MARK ('PLEASE CALL ME PROFESSOR') KENNY HOPELESSLY WRONG ON THE RESERVE BANK OF AUSTRALIA
There was enormous interest in Media Watch Dog Issue 735 (4 July) which featured Mark Kenny's evident confusion when talking to ABC TV Insiders about women in the Parliamentary Liberal Party.
As avid MWD readers know, the learned professor is a MWD fave. He seems to have quit the University of Adelaide as a student and taken up a job with a South Australian Labor MP who was a member of the socialist left faction. From there your man Kenny moved to Canberra to work for the Conservative Free Zone that is the ABC. From there he got a gig at the left-of-centre Sydney Morning Herald along with a seat on the ABC TV Insiders' couch. Then, lo and behold, Comrade Kenny was appointed as a professor at the Australian National University.
As the late Kitty Muggeridge said of the late David Frost, Mark ('Please call me professor') Kenny rose without a trace. After all, he became a professor without producing a book or a substantial monograph or essay. Journalism was good enough.
It is reasonable to expect that viewers of the taxpayer-funded public broadcaster's leading Sunday news and current affairs program will be treated with facts not howlers. Especially from a professor at the Australian National University. Alas, this did not occur last Sunday when Comrade Kenny spoke about the recent decision of the Reserve Bank to keep interest rates on hold. When discussion turned on the decision – which was carried by 6 votes to 3 votes (without the individuals being identified), the following exchange took place:
Jennifer Hewett: …There's a reason you have solidarity. And so this idea that, you know, everybody's going, "Oh, who did, who voted, what?" I think that's actually a very bad idea for in terms of stability and, and trust in the Reserve Bank.
Patricia Karvelas: Mark, you disagree?
Mark Kenny: Well, look, I think it's an odd thing for journalists to not want greater transparency, and I think we're halfway there. I think that, I think to know which way people voted would be the next step. And that is the norm in some –
Patricia Karvelas: The argument [against] is they'd be lobbied. And we don't want that.
Jennifer Hewett: And individuals would be pressured.
Mark Kenny: Well, it works in central banks in other parts of the world, quite a number of them. So, I mean, I'm not going to sit here and argue against transparency. I like the idea of the fact that – of the board having proper, robust debates. I note that it was a six-three decision. I note that there are three Reserve Bank people who are on there. So really, it's a 50-50 decision between the other six. That's what it amounts to. So it's a pretty close run thing. I think, I think, frankly, the decision doesn't really speak of a great deal of confidence within the bank for its own previous position, which was that it seemed to have inflation licked.
The learned professor is hopelessly wrong. The RBA's Monetary Policy Board consists of two Reserve Bank board members – namely, the chair (Michelle Bullock) and deputy chair (Andrew Hauser). Not three. Jenny Wilkinson (the Secretary of the Australian Treasury) is an ex-officio member of the Monetary Policy Board, but she is not an RBA employee). The remaining six are non-executive members.
It would appear that, in his ignorance, Mark Kenny believes that Ms Wilkinson works for the RBA. He also seems to have assumed that Bullock, Hauser and Wilkinson all voted to keep interest rates on hold. How would he know? The voting figures were not released. He also assumed that all six non-executive members divided three-to-three on the decision. How does he know? And here's another question with respect to Professor Kenny. Can You Bear it?
[Here's yet another question. When did the RBA even indicate over the past year that it had inflation licked? Or did the learned professor just make this up? – MWD Editor.] THE SYDNEY MORNING HERALD THROWS THE SWITCH TO SEXISM IN COVERING SPECIAL ENVOY TO COMBAT ANTISEMITISM
Nine's The Sydney Morning Herald proclaims each day that it is 'Independent. Always'. And what about the reality? Well, Media Watch Dog's avid readers can be the judge.
Thursday 10 July saw the release of the Special Envoy's Plan to Combat Antisemitism . It was launched by Special Envoy Jillian Segal in the presence of Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke.
This is how the Sydney Morning Herald covered the story on Monday 14 July by Olivia Ireland under the heading 'Envoy's spouse a director of trust that donated to Advance'.
Antisemitism envoy Jillian Segal has distanced herself from donations by her husband's family trust to controversial conservative lobby group Advance Australia days after she released recommendations on how the government needs to respond to rising hate towards Jewish people.
Australian Electoral Commission donation records lodged by a company Segal's husband, John Roth, is a director of show that the Roth family trust, Henroth, gave $50,000 to Advance in 2023-24.
Turn it up. It's 2025 – but the comrades at Nine's Sydney Morning Herald apparently believe it is appropriate to judge a well-qualified woman with reference to her husband – who happened to be a board member of a trust.
By the way, as Comrade Ireland got around to acknowledging in the ninth paragraph of her story, 'the donation was first reported by The Guardian Australia and The Klaxon'. The Guardian in London and The Guardian Australia are avowedly left-wing newspapers.
In the fifth paragraph of Ireland's report, Jillian Segal was quoted as saying, 'No one would tolerate or accept my husband dictating my politics, I certainly won't dictate his. I have no involvement in his donations, nor will I.'
Fair enough. But what is Ms Ireland doing writing a story that the feminist movement of recent memory would surely have condemned as sexist? Moreover, SMH's columnists, including the likes of Jenna Price, Jacqueline Maley and Kate McClymont, did not speak up about their employer's evident sexism in this instance. Can You Bear It? MINISTER TONY BURKE REMINDS SARAH FERGUSON THAT WIVES ARE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DECISIONS OF THEIR HUSBANDS
Gerard Henderson has written about ABC TV 7.30 presenter Sarah Ferguson's somewhat hostile interview with Jillian Segal, Australia's Special Envoy to Combat Antisemitism, in his column in The Weekend Australian on 19-20 July.
The Ferguson/Segal exchange took place on Thursday 10 July. On Monday 14 July, the 7.30 presenter interviewed Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke. This is how the exchange commenced:
Sarah Ferguson : Tony Burke, welcome to 7.30.
Tony Burke : Good evening, Sarah.
Sarah Ferguson : It was revealed last week that the husband of Antisemitism Envoy Jillian Segal gave money to the controversial and divisive right-wing lobby group, Advance Australia. To be clear, she did not make the donation, and she is not responsible for him. But she has not criticised it. Were you blindsided by that?
Tony Burke : I wasn't aware of it until the reports came out and I'd say two things. First of all, Advance is an appalling organisation ... Secondly, and this was referenced in your question, where it's a long time since we've been a country where you would blame a woman for decisions of her husband. And so, with that in mind, I don't think she's answerable for her husband. She said she didn't know about it, and I've got no reason to do anything other than believe her.
Sarah Ferguson : Let's go to the substance of the report….
Fancy that. The fashionable leftist Ferguson raised the matter of Ms Segal's husband in the first question to Minister Burke. And he had to tell Comrade Ferguson that wives are not responsible for the actions of their husbands. Who would have thought that such advice was necessary to give to a woman in 2025? Can You Bear It? SMH LETTERS EDITOR MOCKS THE COALITION'S ANGUS TAYLOR WITH GRADE 2 LAVATORY 'HUMOUR'
Ellie's (male) co-owner just loves reading the Postscript column in the Sydney Morning Herald every Saturday morning. It's written by the Letters Editor and discusses letters received by the SMH over the previous week. An analysis of the SMH's correspondence makers suggests that the overwhelming majority are well-off Teal or Greens voters who have lots to complain about.
On Saturday 12 July, Harriet Veitch wrote the Postscript column in her capacity as Acting Letters Editor.
After referencing letters about the Reserve Bank's decision to keep interest rates on hold, Comrade Veitch took up the familiar SMH role of Liberal party-bashing – this time with respect to Coalition Shadow Defence Minister Angus Taylor. Here's what she had to say:
Then came thoughtful suggestions to help Angus Taylor back into the limelight. The most popular was to change his name to Anguss, in solidarity with his leader, and there was also Angas, to keep him in good with the fossil fuel brigade. We will draw a veil over very many suggestions that he should just remove the G from his name.
How funny is that? It's Anguss – in solidarity with Liberal Party leader Sussan Ley who has a double 's' in her name. And it's Angas – a reference to Taylor's support for gas to resolve Australia's looming energy shortage. And then there was the suggestion that he should change his name to 'Anus'. Thigh-slapping humour to be sure – of the kind that works well in Grade 2.
Then Comrade Veitch returned to the oh-so-predictable put-down of Donald J. Trump – along with more Liberal Party bashing. Here we go:
There was a short detour to the 'mushroom murders' but then it was back to politics, this time to Trump and some serious talk about his tariffs, but overwhelmingly, it was a chance for writers to shake their heads and savage the idea that Benjamin Netanyahu had nominated Trump for the Nobel Peace Prize. Then mock the Liberal Party for continuing to suggest that Albanese is somehow a milquetoast for not immediately storming into Washington and demanding to speak to the president.
All this says more about the SMH's mocking letters written than it does about Trump or the Liberal Party. Can You Bear It?
[For my part, I wish the Saturday Postscript column a long, long life. We need the copy. – MWD Editor.]
GREAT MEDIA U-TURNS OF OUR TIME AT 9.45 A.M. ON SUNDAY 13 JULY, MARK KENNY DECLARED THAT ISRAEL WAS NOT A DEMOCRACY AND IMPLIED SUPPORT FOR A ONE-STATE SOLUTION IN THE MIDDLE EAST
On ABC TV Insiders on 13 July 2025, discussion turned on the state of Israel – and, in particular, whether it is antisemitic to assert that Israel has no right to exist as a Jewish state with Arab, Druze and Christian minorities.
Patricia Karvelas was in the presenter's chair and the panel comprised Jacob Greber, Jennifer Hewett and Mark Kenny. Let's go to the transcript where Karvelas raised the issue as to whether it is antisemitic to proclaim the view that Israel should be a state comprising an equal number of 'Palestinian and Jewish citizens' – that is, one state.
Patricia Karvelas: I think the big debating point, it seems to me, and disagreement is in relation to definitions as well, and the critique which I put to the Minister is that antisemitism would be seen as saying that you don't think Israel should exist, that that's an antisemitic statement. Now, many people think that Israel should be one state of equal citizens between Palestinians and Jewish citizens. That is a view, and whether that becomes, you know, it's deemed antisemitic.
Mark Kenny: That is not antisemitic. It may be unworkable, but it's not antisemitic. It is, in fact, a – the reason it's opposed in Israel is because it would result in Jewish Israelis not being in the majority and therefore losing control of –
Jennifer Hewett: Well, it actually means getting rid of the State of Israel. I mean, I think that is a fairly, fairly clear point.
Patricia Karvelas: But it is a debate.
Jennifer Hewett: Well, of course, well of course it's a debate. But I mean, it doesn't mean that you can't say that that is antisemitic. I think it is.
Patricia Karvelas: But people do contest that, Jennifer this is the thing –
Jennifer Hewett: Well, of course, I mean, yes –
Mark Kenny: Well, if it's, if it's a democracy, why does this state have a leave pass to be based on religion and claim itself to be a democracy? If you have the entire population with access to the vote and full citizenship rights and everything else within the borders of that country, then that is, that is what we call a democracy in every other part of the world.
Jennifer Hewett: Well, I think if you're suddenly going to start rewriting borders about what, you know, the State of Israel –
Mark Kenny: Well, there's been a fair bit of rewriting – [with respect to other borders].
Mark Kenny claimed that unless you have 'the entire population with access to the vote and full citizenship rights' a nation cannot be classed as a democracy. The Australian National University professor seems blissfully unaware that while seven million of Israel's nine million population are Jews – there are Arabs, Druze and Christian minorities which have full citizenship.
Clearly, Kenny was advocating a situation where Jewish Israelis are not in a majority in their own state. This would occur if the Palestinian population of the West Bank and Gaza were to be part of one-state which included Israel. That is, a one-state solution – which would see the eradication of Israel as we now know it. In short, a one-state solution would lead to the end of the Jewish state. AT 9.55 A.M. ON SUNDAY 13 JULY MARK KENNY DECLARED THAT HE IS OF THE FIRM VIEW THAT THERE SHOULD BE A TWO-STATE SOLUTION IN THE MIDDLE EAST
Soon after, it was Insiders' time for 'Final Observations'. This is what Mark Kenny had to say:
Mark Kenny: Yeah, look, just back to our conversation about Israel and the one-state versus two-state and so forth. I mean, I'm firmly of the view that it ought to be a two-state solution. I wasn't advocating for a one-state, so I just want to be clear about that. But, it's really about definitions of what constitutes antisemitism in this, in this very overheated debate.
Patricia Karvelas: Mm.
What a load of absolute tosh. Clearly, Professor Kenny had called for a one-state solution (which is in accordance with the aims of the Palestinian Authority along with the Islamist terrorist organisations Hamas and Hezbollah). It would seem that, after the panel broke for the 'Talking Pictures' segment prior to 'Final Observations', it dawned on Professor Kenny that he was lining up with 'From the River to the Sea' mob and decided that Israel is a democracy after all and entitled to its own state.
Verily, a Great Media U-Turn of Our Time.
THE ABC/AUSTRALIA INSTITUTE ENTENTE
As Media Watch Dog readers know, this blog has been monitoring the ABC/Guardian Axis and the ABC/Australia Institute Entente. That is, the ready access that journalists from the left-wing The Guardian Australia and political operatives from the avowedly leftist Australia Institute (which is based in the Canberra Bubble) get on the ABC. Meanwhile, political operatives from the conservative Institute of Public Affairs in Melbourne, Robert Menzies Institute in Melbourne and the Menzies Centre in Sydney have been de-platformed by the taxpayer funded public broadcaster. [Don't you mean censored? MWD Editor.]
THE AUSTRALIA INSTITUTE'S EMMA SHORTIS DOES FULL ANTI-UNITED STATES RANT ON THE ABC NEWS DAILY PODCAST – WITHOUT CHALLENGE
Lotsa thanks to the avid Media Watch Dog reader who drew the attention of Ellie's (male) co-owner to the ABC News Daily podcast of 16 July 2025.
The topic was 'Could Trump actually win the Nobel Peace Prize?'. Here's how the taxpayer-funded public broadcaster described the occasion:
Donald Trump has long aspired to win a Nobel Peace Prize. He's now collected several nominations for the prestigious award from global leaders, the latest from the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Today, Emma Shortis, director of the International and Security Affairs program at the progressive think tank The Australia Institute, looks at controversial past recipients, the president's track record on peace and whether he's in with a chance.
By the way, The Australia Institute is not 'progressive'. It's out and out left-wing.
Over a (boring) 15 minutes, Dr Emma Shortis (for a doctor she is) said over and over again that President Donald J. Trump has been nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize by Israel, Pakistan and the Congo. The learned doctor said that Trump wanted a Nobel Peace Prize (Quelle Surprise!) but said he did not deserve one (Quelle Surprise!).
Then, Comrade Shortis went into Trump Derangement Syndrome (TDS) rant mode. Let's go to the transcript – starting with Iran:
Dr Emma Shortis: So, you mentioned Iran, for example, at the beginning. That conflict involved the United States unilaterally bombing Iran with no legitimate basis in international law. So not only did the Trump administration further undermine the institutions and the principles of international law, it's also taken a policy position that you can effectively bomb your way to peace.
And then there was this – on Vietnam.
Emma Shortis: US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger was awarded the Peace Prize in 1973 for his role in negotiating an end to the war in Vietnam, which of course was a war that the United States started.
What a load of absolute tosh. Communist North Vietnam was intent on conquering non-communist South Vietnam. The United States provided military assistance along with military forces to South Vietnam. It fell to North Vietnam on 30 April 1975.
Needless to say, the presenter Sydney Pead did not challenge any of Shortis' claims or attempt to correct her historical errors.
FIVE PAWS AWARD
Media Watch Dog's Five Paws Award was inaugurated in Issue Number 26 (4 September 2009) during the time of Nancy (2004-2017). The first winner was ABC TV presenter Emma Alberici. Ms Alberici scored for remembering the Nazi-Soviet Pact of 23 August 1939 whereby Hitler and Stalin divided Eastern Europe between Germany and the Soviet Union. And for stating that the Nazi-Soviet Pact had effectively started the Second World War, since it was immediately followed by Germany's invasion of Poland from the West (at a time when the Soviet Union had become an ally of Germany). Soon after, the Soviet Union invaded Poland from the East. Over the years, the late Nancy's Five Paws Award has become one of the world's most prestigious gongs – rating just below the Nobel Prize and the Academy Awards.
SUMEYYA ILANBEY WINS AWARD FOR DOCUMENTING TEAL MP NICOLETTE BOELE'S OVERWHELMING NAÏVETY
As avid Media Watch Dog readers will be aware, the Parliament of Australia resumes on Tuesday 22 July. As is the modern practice, the newly elected MPs have just gone through an induction process where they learn about how to operate in Parliament House and receive briefings on various matters.
Sounds tedious? Sure does – especially for someone like Tim Wilson, the Liberal Party MP for Goldstein, who is returning to the House of Representatives having won back the seat of Goldstein from Teal Zoe Daniel in May 2025 which he had lost three years earlier.
One of the inductees is Teal Nicolette Boele, the newly elected Member for Bradfield (whose victory is to be challenged in the Court of Disputed Returns).
The Australian Financial Review 's Sumeyya Ilanbey saw fit to report the induction. She sure got a good story out of it on 15 July – under the heading 'Teal MP asked ASIO to vet her volunteers'. This is how the piece commenced:
Independent MP Nicolette Boele asked Australia's domestic intelligence agency to vet hundreds of her volunteers, claiming she was unable to verify the bona fides of her teal army. The Bradfield MP joined 30 other newly elected parliamentarians at an induction to federal parliament on June 24, when she posed the question to a deputy director at the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, according to a person who was present at the briefings.
'Boele waited until the end of the presentation, and as was customary for the entire program, monopolised the question time,' the person told The Australian Financial Review on the condition of anonymity to reveal details of the private briefing. 'She started with the preamble that she had hundreds of volunteers working for her, and did not know who all of them were. She then asked if ASIO could provide a vetting service for her – used the word vetting – to check out the volunteers.'
The two-hour security session was addressed by the parliament's sergeant-at-arms, as well as representatives from the Australian Federal Police, ASIO and Department of Parliamentary Services security and cybersecurity teams.
How about that? According to Ms Ilanbey's report, not only did Ms Boele dominate the question time periods during the inductions. She also asked an ASIO representative at the briefings whether the organisation could vet her 1,000 or so volunteers. Ms Boele was told that ASIO does not provide such a service for MPs.
The Bradfield MP seemed blissfully unaware that vetting is an arduous time-consuming process. ASIO does not have the facilities to do such vetting without an enormous increase in staffing. Also, if ASIO did vetting for some 1,000 Bradfield Teals it would have to do vetting for every other MP.
Moreover, it is not at all clear how Radio National listeners/ Sydney Morning Herald -reading, well-off blokes and sheilas who support Boele could be some kind of security threat to Australia. Simply by handing out flyers while draped in the Teal colours endorsed by multi-millionaire Simon Holmes a Court's Climate 200 operation.
How naïve can a Teal MP be? However, thanks to this report, Nicolette Boele naivety is on the public record.
Sumeyya Ilanbey: Five Paws
AN ANNABEL CRABB MOMENT
ANNABEL CRABB TALKS (AT LENGTH) ABOUT THE LOBSTER WARS TO DAVID ('I HAVE A PYMBLE ACCENT') MARR
ABC's Radio National's Late Night Live , under the 'new management' of presenter David Marr, identifies as broadcasting 'incisive analysis, fearless debates and nightly surprises'. Listeners, if listeners there are, are invited to 'explore the serious, the strange and the profound with David Marr'. For his part, Ellie's (male) co-owner does all this while walking the said canine on her late-night-walk.
In fact, there is no debate – fearless or otherwise – on Late Night Live (aka Late Night Left). Take its conversation on politics, for example. Until recently, the left-of-centre Laura Tingle covered Australian national politics. It now seems that her replacement is to be the left-of-centre Annabel Crabb. The left-of-centre Bruce Shapiro covers United States politics and the left-of-centre Ian Dunt covers British politics. No nightly surprises from this lot. Not much viewpoint diversity either.
It was unclear who would replace La Tingle in this slot. As avid Media Watch Dog readers know, Tingle recently took up the position of ABC Global Affairs Editor – from whence she plans to explain the rest of the world to Australians. (see MWD, 30 May 2025). Good luck with that – as the saying goes. In any event, on Monday 14 July it seemed that Ms Crabb is going to replace La Tingle in the Late Night Live Australian politics slot. Let's hope so.
Why? MWD hears avid readers cry. Well, because it is likely that, as with her predecessor, Ms Crabb will provide great copy for Ellie's (male) co-owner at Hangover time on Friday morning when he is putting MWD together.
MWD looks back fondly to the time when Comrade Crabb presented Kitchen Cabinet on ABC TV. She would rock up to the house of some present or former politician, basket in hand and wearing a 1950s-style hat. In the basket were sweets – or should it be said dessert? – which was to follow an interview with one or other politician who cooked a meal. Of which Ms Crabb partook – before consuming dessert.
But MWD digresses, not for the first time. On Late Night Live on Monday 14 July, Comrade Crabb rocked up to the ABC Sydney inner-city Ultimo studio (sans basket) with the idea of giving your man Marr a lesson in how lobsters hold the explanation of President Trump's trade policy. Really. Or something like that. How did it go? Well, you be the judge. Here's how the occasion commenced:
David Marr: We were very nasty to China about the COVID virus in our public statements. And then they took, they took to punishing us with trade.
Annabel Crabb: Although, yeah, although the cover story was that it was about biosecurity. And, I mean, I love the way that these trade barriers always have a kind of cover, cover story about biosecurity.
David Marr: Language is wonderful.
Annabel Crabb: It's super fantastic.
David Marr: Because when, what you and I really know the truth is, it's actually just about lobsters.
Go on. Alas, Ms Crabb did. And on. And on. And on squared.
After some verbal sludge about why (allegedly) lobsters 'tend to feature disproportionately in trade wars', the well-mannered David Marr (with the self-confessed Sydney North Shore Pymble accent) politely acknowledged 'lobsters have history'. This was enough to fire Comrade Crabb (even further) up.
Annabel Crabb: Oh, such a rich history. I'm really only going back eight years, but, I mean, it's long, right? So, hooray for Canada. Terrible for the United States. So, the United States then went berserk and got a mini-deal from Brussels that protected US lobster exporters for a period of time. Hooray. Then Trump trade war Mark I happened with China, and China slapped a 25 per cent tariff on American lobsters. Oh, my God. Oh no, disaster. And the Canadian lobster people surged. They moved to about 80 per cent, 85 per cent of Chinese imported lobsters and the American type, which is mainly from Maine, kind of a significant political area, shrank back to 15 per cent. It was shocking. And then they only recovered slightly, at the cost of Australian lobster folk, because then China declared war on Australian lobsters. So, keep in mind, America and Canada both export many, many, many times the tonnage of Australian live lobsters that are trudging around the globe, but when one is damaged, the other does better, right? So, what's happening now is –
David Marr: [Sigh/laugh noise]
Annabel Crabb: Stick with me –
David Marr: I don't have any choice, because this has got to come to something.
Alas, it didn't. It may be that the Pymble accent guy dozed off at this point. How does MWD know? Well, an awake Comrade Marr would surely have asked precisely when 'China declared war on Australian lobsters'. Even to the extent of asking Ms Crabb how did Australia fight back? With Barramundi? Or perhaps Queensland Queenfish? Or maybe by choosing the (watery) nuclear option – a Great White Shark?
The conversation continued – to no point whatsoever. Then there was this:
Annabel Crabb: The temporary protections for American lobsters heading over to the EU, that deal expires on the 29 July this year, one day before the generalised tariff of 30 per cent is unleashed upon the EU and all of its exports to America. Where are the lobsters going to land? Because if there are still trade barriers from China for American lobsters, and tariffs in the US on Canadian lobsters and –
David Marr: She's figuring this out, ladies and gentlemen, I can –
Annabel Crabb: – Generalised lobster confusion. Who could be the winner? We could be. Australian lobsters –
David Marr: Annabel, that's extraordinarily reassuring. And I can see even now, in my mind's eye, a banquet in the Great Hall of the People. And the Australian delegation is sitting around with Chinese high officials. And what are they eating? – Australian lobster.
Annabel Crabb: Well, it's only happening because of the growth of the Chinese middle class, right? All of these things are related to each other, is what I'm trying to say.
David Marr: All right, can I ask you one simple question before we need to go –
Annabel Crabb: Oh, you're chasing me out already because you're tired of my lobster prattling.
David Marr: No, no, no. I think that's a unique way to look at world trade, absolutely unique way to look at world trade. And I know that the listeners of Late Night Live are as are, as intrigued as I am. But look –
Annabel Crabb: Don't get me onto pandas. That's another whole story.
After hearing all this while on his late-night-walk with Ellie, Hendo returned home and had a Post Port Squared After Dinner Drink. After all, he had just experienced what can only be described as …
Verily, An Annabel Crabb Moment.
[Well done, Hendo. Let's hope for MWD 's sake that Comrade Crabb returns to Late Night Left next Monday, basket on arm, and 1950s-style getup. Perhaps she could explain how consumption levels of Diet Coke and McDonald's Burgers determine the value of the United States dollar. MWD Editor]
ANNABEL CRABB DRESSED TO REPEL CHINA LOBSTERS IN THE LOBSTER WARS.
YOUR TAXES AT WORK
ABC'S LAURA TINGLE & STEPHEN DZIEDZIC REPORT INDEPENDENTLY FROM CHINA AROUND THE SAME TIME
Here's a question. How many journalists from the taxpayer-funded public broadcaster does it take to cover an Australian prime minister's official visit to China? The answer is at least two – even though Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's visit did not involve many meetings of importance to journalists. Sure, there was one very significant event – the meeting with China's President Xi Jinping. But one journo should have done the trick.
In the event, the ABC sent two journalists to China. Namely, its newly appointed Global Affairs Editor and MWD fave Laura Tingle – and its Foreign Affairs Reporter Stephen Dziedzic. ABC TV viewers also heard from 7.30 political correspondent Jacob Greber (who is based in Canberra) on this issue.
It was not so long ago that La Tingle described her new role as explaining the rest of the world to Australia (see MWD, 30 May 2025). But there she was on Thursday 17 July telling ABC Radio National Breakfast presenter Steve Cannane from Chengdu that she had 'got up early' since 'we are going to see pandas fairly soon'. [I wonder whether La Tingle has also been appointed to the role of the ABC's Panda Affairs Editor. Just a thought. – MWD Editor.]
And so it came to pass that, shortly after 7 am on the RN version of AM , your man Dziedzic told Sabra Lane about Prime Minister Anthony Albanese panda diplomacy and more besides. Then shortly before 8 am on RN Breakfast Comrade Tingle told Comrade Cannane about, eh, PM Albanese's panda diplomacy and more besides.
Both were reporting from Chengdu in Sichuan province at around the same time.
Your Taxes At Work.
* * * *Until next time.
* * * *