Skip to content

Henrietta Cook and The Age newspaper – Where ideology triumphs over the truth.

November 12, 2013

Henrietta Cook and The Age newspaper – Where ideology triumphs over the truth.

Truth vs. Ideology

Published: 12/11/13

Fairfax News has descended into leftwing echo chamber over the years and as a result looks to be running itself broke. Its ideological dogma is no more evident than in the Melbourne based ‘The Age’ newspaper (plus online edition).

It’s headlines and stories appear to be more focused on defending extreme left-wing causes than it is in investigating the truth. So extreme has The Age gone that it now engages in the good old fashion Soviet style of hatchet jobs against individuals.

Exhibit 1: A hatchet Job

The headline story for the day by a rather hypocritical HENRIETTA COOK:

“Women who have abortions deserve to die: doctor says”

Read more:

Gleaning the halls of Facebook to find a bunch of transient quotes is a dubious method at best. Often what is missing from isolated quotes is the context and the preceding banter that sets the tone of what is written. Provocations designed to draw rash and instant thoughts barely scrape the actual depth at which a person may be thinking. Hence I have very little time for ‘gotcha’ questions and pillaring of people on single quotes. Given the right spin, all quotes can be made to sound cruel and evil.

So as a result of this method Henrietta Cook set out to write what I would describe as a deliberate hatchet job on a Doctor that was not even named in the article.  We also have a founding member of Wikileaks, Dr Daniel Mathews, as a hearsay source of an online conversation. There is no information provided by the person being accused so any right of reply to a list of accusations is completely missing.

The ideological addiction to the abortion culture goes so far that it is incomprehensible that anyone could possibly conscientiously object to it. Henrietta writes only referring to Dr Mathews blog as evidence:

The transcript, reveals that the medical practitioner is anti-abortion, does not refer patients, and in a few instances has tried to talk women out of abortion.

”Yes, I’m breaking Victoria’s new abortion laws, but I don’t give a stuff – I am not going to soil my conscience by being complicit in the slaughter of children.”


Referring Dr Mathews blog Henrietta also claims that:

The blog also reveals that the doctor thinks it is ”a shame” that more men don’t die from complications of abortion.

”It disappoints me that men can sire children, decide to kill them, and that they do not need to risk their neck in the process.”

Even at the base level, this kind journalism this extremely sloppy. Quoting a second-hand account from the blog of a person who emphatically disagrees with another person beggars belief. Yet The Age newspaper in all its wisdom decided that it was the headline story for its online edition. Finally, we have this revelation by Henrietta Cook:

One of the people involved in the Facebook conversation reported the medical practitioner to authorities, although Dr Mathews said it was not him.

What is missing from this story?

Reading Henrietta Cook’s story is like reading half a conversation and trying to work out what it is all about. At best it can be described as cheap gossip and at worst it is a deliberate hatchet job by three ideologically aligned players: Dr Mathews, Henrietta Cook and The Age newspaper editors.

The background to this story relates to changes to the abortion laws of Victoria that legally obligate doctors to refer patients to abortion clinics regardless of their position on abortion. At the time many Doctors warned that such a law would force people to break the law rather than their conscience. Doctors who did not wish to have blood on their hands for being involved in the abortion industry would be prosecuted. The previous state Labor government minister was so adamant that such doctors should be forced to support this industry that he intentionally included Section 8 of the new abortion laws.

Currently, there is a movement to have Section 8 removed from the law books to prevent innocent Doctors being charged for doing little more than refusing to be part of a process that would ultimately kill another human being.

An online petition at explains what is going on.

Dr Mark Hobart, a Melbourne GP, might face discipline… or even the loss of his right to practise medicine. Why? He refused to refer a woman for abortion at 19 weeks. What was the couples’ motive? They wanted a boy instead of a girl!

The law on this matter in Victoria is a denial of freedom of conscience. Why? Doctors who have a conscientious objection to abortion are required by the law to refer women who want an abortion to another doctor… and one who does not have a conscientious objection

The bottom line of this episode is one of ‘conscientious objection’ versus ‘the culture of death’. Yet The Age newspaper has reduced it to one of so-called ‘nasty quotes’ and the spin they put on them. Perhaps Dr Hobart was not quoted in Henrietta’s story because the evidence was so shaky that naming him would have opened The Age to defamation litigation, or perhaps they did not want anyone to check the facts with Dr Mark Hobart himself. Either way, the missing name speaks volumes about bias.


Here is an interview with Dr Hobart on 2gb radio:



Editorial Comment

Here is Henrietta Cook’s twitter feed:

Go nuts.

I wonder what Dr Hobart is objecting to?

No comments yet

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: