As I Please: The Henderson Wars (3)

No word back from Gerard yet, nor any word from anyone who thinks him wise and prescient. Nor from the smh, whose editors I’ve asked to put me in his job on half his wages for a two month trial.

Gerard should say if he still thinks the ABC should be privatised; or, if he doesn’t, why he changed his mind. It’s no small question, with the Howard Liberals (whom he and Abbott so piously identify with) of late so close, with Brown and Wilkie currently wobbling, to federal power.

I ask him to answer this question wherever he wants to, in his column, his blog, or in these pages.

I ask him to do it soon.

We have a right to know.

  1. Without meaning to divert the topic Bob, would you go as far as Phillip Adams and call on the Prime Minister to resign from her job too (given that you asked us to nominate one thing that she had been right on either in your original post)?

  2. Hmm. Let me think about that one.

    She hasn’t been as wrong as Gerard for as long as Gerard.

    But she’s certainly in practise.

  3. To True Believer :

    Yes! Everyone should resign at once! Then we can all go on holidays. Last one out turn off the lights.

  4. Bob,I think that Gerard Henderson is correct in his opposition to the media inquiry and it’s likely aim to restrict the free press.

    I know a lot of people hate the murdoch media and that’s fair enough. But I’d say that greater government control of anyone’s speech is never the answer.

    What really annoys me about the whole thing is people are supporting this media enquiry and the likely restrictive laws that will come from it because their “side” is in power now and they want to stick it to the murdoch press. People forget that governments (any party) almost never give up their powers to control us, and soon enough the wrong side will be in charge and then it’s too late.

    As for privatising the ABC, if that every happens then it’ll be a sad day for this country. Unfortunately most people my age don’t watch it, listen to it, or care, so it might happen someday….

    • So you’re for Murdoch’s right to bug people are you and cause them distress and against our right to investigate Murdoch and cause him distress? You’ll be against ugly pictures and warnings on cigarette packets too I suppose and speed limits near school crossings. You’ll be against the law that puts on beer bottles the alcohol strength of the beer.

      Murdoch once before the 1975 election ran a headline saying Gough and Margaret were divorcing and cost Labor, oh, three seats. He has a right to do this, does he? And we have no right to stop him?

      It’s like saying we have no right to investigate how often a certain Catholic priest buggered children, freedom of religion forbids it.

      Crime should be investigated, I think, and harm done, by toxic chemicals, home invasion or false rumour.

      You, apparently, disagree.

      • We have a right to prosecute his media outlets for defamation, libel, slander, etc. The laws are already in place. Crime should certainly be investigated.

        Where is the evidence that Murdoch owned papers have been engaging in phone hacking in Australia? Has anyone come forward to accuse them of this?

        I don’t like the Murdoch empire, but I’m deeply uncomfortable with the idea that our government should start further regulating our speech and/or the press.

        What happens if the inquiry turns up no evidence of wrongdoing, but we get some new laws giving government greater control of the media because of “the vibe of the thing”?

        The labor government can have greater control over the evil murdoch press, and anyone else they don’t like. Hooray.

        What happens when the coalition wins government (bound to happen eventually) and they use the same powers to shut you down? Or anyone they disagree with?

        Unlike you, I seem to have greater faith in the public’s ability to read various different sources and make up their own minds.

        As for cigarette labels, no problem with that, people need to know that cigarettes will kill you. However, once in possession of all the information, if an adult wants to smoke, the government has no right to stop them. A person can still decide they want to smoke and accept the health consequences. Smokers pay more in tax than they cost the health system (and no, I don’t smoke)

        Speed limits around schools, definitely in support although this is quite interesting:,1518,448747,00.html , apparently a few towns in europe are removing traffic restrictions with improved results for safety. Not sure how it’d work here, but it’s a cool idea :grin: .

        Bottom line, I think we have adequate laws in place to deal with spreading of false rumour, lies, etc, and that greater government control of our speech is a terrible idea.

        Anyway, I’m quite drunk so I’m off to bed.

  5. apologies for typos, should be “its” and “ever”, not “it’s” and “every”

Leave a Comment

* Copy this password:

* Type or paste password here:

10,843 Spam Comments Blocked so far by Spam Free Wordpress

NOTE - You can use these HTML tags and attributes:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>