tip off

Latham’s Henderson Watch: 54 mistakes and counting

Time to cast an eye on Gerard Henderson’s latest critical efforts. The former Labor Party leader fact-checks the self-anointed media fact checker.

With the political silly season ending, commentators are asking just one serious question: why is Gerard Henderson trying to do himself out of a job?

In his Sydney Morning Herald column on January 8, the great pedant took aim at Malcolm Turnbull’s suggestion the ABC might establish a fact checking website to hold the rest of the media to account. Henderson despises the national broadcaster because it has repeatedly rejected his offer to be the official fact checker for ABC documentaries. Nice Mr Scott and his colleagues know Henderson to be error-prone, hence his unsuitability for the job.

Never one to be deterred by reality, Henderson let fly in his Herald column, declaring: “An organisation [like the ABC] that puts errors to air could not legitimately set itself up as an independent fact checker.” Let’s get that right: in Hendoland, a media outlet which publishes errors should not be allowed to fact check on others.

By this standard, Henderson (aged 67) should hang up his clippings file and video replay button and retire to a suitable (Democratic Labor Party-funded) nursing home for a life of carpet bowls, letter writing, parlour games, more letter writing, origami and even the odd spot of correspondence. Henderson is doing himself out of a job.

Regular Henderson Watch readers will know of Gerard’s 47 factual mistakes recorded in this series. These were not typographical errors but significant howlers. For instance, he did not know the name of Tony Abbott’s electorate (Warringah, not Mackellar), nor the parliamentary chamber in which Barry O’Farrell sits (NSW Legislative Assembly, not Legislative Council). He also (falsely) implicated Malcolm Fraser (born 1930) in an (alleged) s-xual relationship between Betty Fairfax (born 1907) and Bob Menzies (born 1894).

All writers are entitled to an error or two; no one expects perfection in large bodies of work. But Henderson is different on two fronts. First, as Australia’s most notorious pedant, he has invited upon himself a higher standard of accountability. Second, far from the odd error, Henderson makes an avalanche of mistakes. I’d say not only is he a hypocrite, he is incompetent.

I do not have the time or resources to chronicle every Hendo Howler. There are too many. So Henderson Watch has turned to a case study approach, analysing a representative sample of Henderson’s ineptitude. In this edition, I have placed the spotlight on Henderson’s last Media Watch Dog for 2012 (No. 166 on December 7).

The most serious allegation an opposition leader can make against a prime minister is one of criminality. This is what Tony Abbott did on the Channel Nine Today program on Thursday, November 29. He accused Julia Gillard of having misled the Western Australian Corporate Affairs Commissioner in the AWU matter in the early 1990s. “Plainly on the documented evidence of the unredacted transcript she gave false information to the West Australian authorities,” Abbott told Today. ”Now for a legal partner, for a senior lawyer to make false claims to an important statutory body like this is a very, very serious matter. It’s in breach of the law.”

The following day, Abbott’s deputy Julie Bishop confirmed the gravity of the allegation in The Australian Financial Review:

Bishop … [said] Abbott had relied on advice from her and Coalition legal spokesman George Brandis, not on media reports, when he said on television on Thursday morning that the Prime Minister had breached the law. ‘[Gillard] appears to be in breach of sections 170, 409 and 558 of the WA criminal code and she appears to be in breach of section 43 of the Associations Incorporation Act,’ she said. ‘They are indictable offences’ … The WA laws cited by Bishop concern false information to officials (section 170, with a maximum jail term of three years), fraud for benefit or detriment (409) conspiracy (558) and false or misleading statements (43).”

Yet in MWD 166 Henderson tried to defend Abbott from over-reaching and accusing Gillard of criminality:

The Opposition leader did not accuse the Prime Minister of ‘criminality’. What Abbot [sic] said, during a ‘door-stop’ interview on the morning of Thursday 24 November, was that Gillard’s behaviour ‘would appear to be in breach of the law’.  An allegation that someone had breached a law is not the same as an accusation of criminal behaviour. There are some breaches of law which do not amount to criminal behaviour.”

Can you bear it? In a single paragraph, Henderson made not one, not two, not three, not four, but five errors. He had the wrong date (November 24), the wrong interview (a “door-stop”), the wrong Tony (“Abbot”), the wrong quote (“would appear to be”) and the wrong conclusion (implying that Abbott’s accusation was the equivalent of a traffic infringement when, in fact, the alleged breach of the law was of a criminal nature). The only thing he got right was the Prime Minister’s surname — as the saying goes, a case of small mercies.

It is hard to imagine anything more embarrassing for a professional pedant. Unfortunately, it’s indicative of the quality of Henderson’s work. The evidence suggests his best days are behind him. If a left-of-centre politician made a similar sequence of mistakes, displaying a similar brand of incompetence, Henderson would be among those calling for their resignation.

But it gets worse. Having been wrong (five times) about a Liberal leader, for the sake of balance, Henderson moved onto former Labor Leaders. MWD 166 opined that: “Ben Chifley was always photographed with a pipe in his mouth.” Just one problem: David Day’s biography of Chifley (HarperCollins, 2001) contains no less than 19 photos of the great man without a pipe (in his mouth or anywhere else). So too, Finlay Crisp’s biography (Longmans, 1960) has six pictures of Chifley sans pipe.

For a self-proclaimed history expert, Henderson makes a lot of errors about Labor and Liberal Party history. Perhaps he should have taken Norm Henderson’s advice and stuck with the DLP.

At least Henderson’s bravery is beyond dispute (as in crazy-brave). Instead of engaging in reputable fact-checking, he regards wacky media personalities like Derryn Hinch as reliable sources of information. This was clear in MWD 166, when he gave his “Five Paws” award to Hinch.

And the Human Headline’s award-worthy achievement? On the Sky News Paul Murray Live program on December 3, Hinch (supposedly) corrected me by pointing out he had never used the expression “Shame, Shame, Shame”. Just one problem: on his website on January 6, 2012, Hinch admitted to saying “Shame, Shame, Shame” — in a motion picture, no less. As with most things Henderson, the Five Paws seems a fraud.

This brings the total of Hendo Howlers to 54. Eighteen months ago, in correspondence with Robert Manne, Henderson declared: “I always check my memory against the written record.” Yeah, sure, and I’m the Easter Bunny. Henderson’s problems turn on the fact that his memory is patchy and his fact checker is Derryn Hinch.

Until next time …

16
  • 1
    klewso
    Posted Wednesday, 30 January 2013 at 1:53 pm | Permalink

    Hendo Watch”? “Ground-hog Day” - or as we might say “Minced Porkies Day”?

  • 2
    Madonna
    Posted Wednesday, 30 January 2013 at 2:30 pm | Permalink

    Welcome aboard the Crikey train Mark.
    Your article has the theme of ABC TV’s media watch, of which I’m a fan.
    Can Crikey readers expect more of your observations and corrections in their mailbox in 2013?
    As I don’t subscribe to pay TV, I never saw the interview you’re referring to. However, I’m surprised to hear Derryn forgot his famous lines Shame, Shame Shame…I haven’t.

  • 3
    sean
    Posted Wednesday, 30 January 2013 at 3:13 pm | Permalink

    Great stuff. 5 Howlers in one paragraph - you gotta laugh. Henderson really is a joke. In yesterday’s Herald he based a whole article on a gross misinterpretation of a galaxy poll on the most popular Australian PM of the last 25 years. You guessed it, John Howard (35% of the vote). Poor old Hendo failed to realise that respondents in such polls vote according to their party affiliation. Thus conservative voters had one option (Howard) and labor voters had 4 options - thus splitting the potential votes of all four Labor PMs. The guy is not the sharpest pencil in the pack.

    The 5 errors in one paragraph should be enough for the Herald to finally pension him off.

    Hinch also used to use to say “shame, shame, shame’ as a catchphrase on his current affairs program in the 80s.

  • 4
    Dogs breakfast
    Posted Wednesday, 30 January 2013 at 4:18 pm | Permalink

    What can I say. Schadenfreude is not an emotion that I experience without a tinge of guilt, but what the hey!

    :-)

  • 5
    Kevin Herbert
    Posted Wednesday, 30 January 2013 at 7:04 pm | Permalink

    sean:

    couldn’t agree more re Hendo’s article in yesterday’s Herald. You have to wonder what parallel universe he occupies when he claims that Abbot will ride into victory on Howard’s popularity…huh???
    Howard was only the second PM to be booted out of his seat..even his cras purchase of ‘working family’ votes with middle class welfae could not save him.
    Howard will go down in histroy as the PM who invoked a racist election campaign in 2001, and who willingly offered up Aussie passport holders for torture….wehat legacy the Rodent left.

    If ever I see him in public, it will give me great pleasure to remind him of his sell out of Aussie citizens, for a pat on the back from the war mongering Yanks.

    Even Menzies would have rejected such odious forelock tugging.
    Finally, great to see Mark Latham has eschewed his role with that pathetic Zionist/US rag aka as the Aussie Spectator mag.

  • 6
    rubiginosa
    Posted Wednesday, 30 January 2013 at 7:56 pm | Permalink

    Justice Steven Rares did not make any findings against…the aspiring Liberal Mal Brough”
    http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/minority-rule-makes-fools…

    Derryn’s fact-checking?

  • 7
    Mike Flanagan
    Posted Thursday, 31 January 2013 at 9:24 am | Permalink

    One can only accept that Henderson is a remnant piece of the arcane Bobby Santamaria and Danny Mannix clique who were the providors of the political philosophy and moral compass of the DLP in bygone years.
    That is the same DLP that held this nation to ransom and caused the unnecesary expenditure of billion of todays dollars in defense spending to hold off at our beach heads and sandy shores the fictitious march of the ‘yellow hordes’ of the Chinese.
    At the same time they influenced the denial to our farmers the Chinese market for our excess wheat.
    If one had daughters, one would be loath to invite him into our homes, for Henderson would be forever moving from bedroom to bedroom looking under their beds for commos and would have to be ejected as a political eccentric and pervert.
    But thanks to Mark’s above informative missive we can all remember to put the latch on the front door, just in case he should arrive univited.

  • 8
    Brisbane Bloke
    Posted Thursday, 31 January 2013 at 2:17 pm | Permalink

    OK - so you vetoed my last message. Here’s another go: who wants to hear what Mark Latham has to say - on anything? Surely there’s some flood clean-up work he can get somewhere? Someone - please?

  • 9
    JimDocker
    Posted Thursday, 31 January 2013 at 3:50 pm | Permalink

    Gerard Henderson is a crazy right wing fool. He speaks slowly and with purpose which lends a certain authority to his words until you listen to what he is saying and then he can be dismissed.

    Mark Latham is a nutcase that has no idea how to behave in a civilised society. His attempt at journalism during the last election was disgraceful, with his bovver boy antics and his plea for people not to vote.

    He is the last person that I want to read articles by.

    Crikey is the only news source that I pay for, but I expect better than Mark Latham.

  • 10
    Brisbane Bloke
    Posted Thursday, 31 January 2013 at 4:03 pm | Permalink

    If Crikey is going to give Mark Latham free air, then let’s hear from Andrew Bolt, Greg Sheridan and Chopper Reid. I pay for Crikey, so I can read balanced, intelligent and interesting content. Latham has, will and could never produce one word of either.

  • 11
    Mike Flanagan
    Posted Thursday, 31 January 2013 at 5:07 pm | Permalink

    Brissie Bloke;
    While I have never been a screaming fan of Mark Latham and recognise some of his failings, he is entittle to work and earn a crust and the above is a well presented case to be very wary of the sanctimonious Henderson neocon sprays.

  • 12
    Kevin Herbert
    Posted Thursday, 31 January 2013 at 7:22 pm | Permalink

    Jim Docker;

    see ya Jim…..don’t renew your subscription….you won’t be missed old son…

  • 13
    Kevin Herbert
    Posted Thursday, 31 January 2013 at 7:23 pm | Permalink

    same to you Brisbane Bloke…..

  • 14
    JimDocker
    Posted Friday, 1 February 2013 at 11:37 am | Permalink

    How old are you Kevin Herbert ? 12 ?

    Latham has no respect as a political journalist. He has no respect anywhere as a person capable of balanced thought.

    I can see by the level of your response the why Latham would impress you. I have higher standards, and I expect Crikey to uphold those, as they have in the past.

  • 15
    Brisbane Bloke
    Posted Friday, 1 February 2013 at 11:48 am | Permalink

    Thanks Kev. You keep absorbing Latham’s drivel - it will make you a better person. I choose not to read it. It’s the fact that Crikey chooses him above so many intelligent and interesting columnists that concerns me. Any comment from Crikey on this? How much is he paying you for the exposure?

  • 16
    burninglog
    Posted Saturday, 2 February 2013 at 2:35 am | Permalink

    HAHAHAHA !!

    Encore ! Encore !

Womens Agenda

loading...

Smart Company

loading...

StartupSmart

loading...

Property Observer

loading...