Speaker 1: Good evening and welcome to the media show.
Speaker 2: I'm Caleb Bond. Here's what's coming up tonight.
Speaker 1: The ABC accused of yet again misleading viewers in a
Speaker 1: military story, and a senator takes aim over their profile
Speaker 1: piece on Bob Katter, Big story from CNN. They say
Speaker 1: they don't hate America. Huge news if it's true, and
Speaker 1: we will someone call out the six hundred billion dollar
Speaker 1: figure that Labour keeps ascribing to the coalition's plan for
Speaker 1: nuclear energy. But first, the ABC, as I said before,
Speaker 1: this week, cleared itself of wrongdoing over a complaint that
Speaker 1: a Four Corners report made it look like the construction
Speaker 1: noise could be heard over the last post at the
Speaker 1: Australian War Memorial. The episode, hosted by journalist Mark Willisy,
Speaker 1: was broadcast last month and was critical of the War
Speaker 1: Memorial's five hundred million dollar expansion. James Willis reported in
Speaker 1: the Daily Telegraph this week that the War Memorial had
Speaker 1: lodged an official complaint with the ABC over the episode,
Speaker 1: and specifically the bit where the last post is played
Speaker 1: over the top of construction noise. The Australian War Memorials
Speaker 1: director Matt Anderson told The Telly that they had quote
Speaker 1: a stop work order since twenty twenty to prevent construction
Speaker 1: noise from disrupting commemorative ceremonies, including the daily Last Post ceremony.
Speaker 1: At best, it was remarkably insensitive to all for whom
Speaker 1: the sounding of the last Post is a most solemn
Speaker 1: act and tribute. At worst, it appears it was a
Speaker 1: deliberate edit to mislead the audience. This is the part
Speaker 1: of the program to which he refers.
Speaker 3: The inheritors of Charles Bean's simple solemn vision are now
Speaker 3: massively expanding the memorial. This place of commemoration is also
Speaker 3: a construction site.
Speaker 1: Now what you saw there was multiple pieces of footage
Speaker 1: edited together. The construction footage was not filmed at the
Speaker 1: same time as the last Post or the footage showing
Speaker 1: mister Willisey, and I don't suggest that it was deliberately
Speaker 1: edited to make it look like construction was going on
Speaker 1: while the Last Post was playing, but I do think
Speaker 1: many viewers would have had that impression. The ABC doesn't
Speaker 1: seem to agree, though, because it's Ombardsman, which is an
Speaker 1: internal reviewer of complaints, not an external ombardsman.
Speaker 2: As you might think.
Speaker 1: Found that quote the episode did not suggest that construction
Speaker 1: noise from the development site had disrupted a last post ceremony.
Speaker 1: We think that four corners is correct that no reasonable
Speaker 1: viewer would interpret this series of scenes as a continuous sequence.
Speaker 1: Even a viewer who might have got the impression that
Speaker 1: the recording of the last post was live audio from
Speaker 1: the ceremony in the first or second scene would have
Speaker 1: understood that it was then borrowed quote unquote as a
Speaker 1: unifying musical soundtrack for the following, related but separate scenes.
Speaker 2: Again, you saw the footage. I'll let you be the judge.
Speaker 1: And of course, this isn't the first time the ABC
Speaker 1: has been caught in a scandal over the editing of
Speaker 1: a military related story by mister Willacy. You'll recall that
Speaker 1: last year we found out the ABC edited extra gunshots
Speaker 1: into footage in a story that suggested Commando Heston Russell
Speaker 1: committed war crimes in Afghanistan. Well after This network's Chris
Speaker 1: Kenny discussed the war memorial story this week and also
Speaker 1: mentioned the previous story by mister Willersey, the ABC sent
Speaker 1: a complaint to Sky News claiming his comments were reputationally
Speaker 1: damaging to mister Willersey and the Four Corners team. The ABC,
Speaker 1: I think should be more concerned with the accuracy of
Speaker 1: its programs and how they're presented to viewers, rather than
Speaker 1: firing off complaints to those who question them. Sjoining me
Speaker 1: on the panel this week Skarn News contributor Kel Richards
Speaker 1: and the man I was just talking about James Willis
Speaker 1: of the Daily Telegraph, and I'll start with you, James
Speaker 1: Cracker Yarn. Of course that you broke this week, But
Speaker 1: the ABC says there is no problem here. Do you
Speaker 1: buy the idea that a reasonable viewer, no reasonable viewer,
Speaker 1: they say, would have got the impression that the last
Speaker 1: post was interfered with by construction Laise.
Speaker 4: Well, Caleb.
Speaker 5: For everyone that I've shown this footage to over the
Speaker 5: last few days, both in media in private political figures,
Speaker 5: they've all been of.
Speaker 2: The view that at the very least it.
Speaker 5: Was an insensitive act to have anything playing over the
Speaker 5: sacred bugle call of the last Post, and so to
Speaker 5: have the construction running over the top was certainly insensitive.
Speaker 4: But on the wider issue, this was.
Speaker 5: A one hour program that largely focused on critics of
Speaker 5: the five hundred million dollar expansion of the War Memorial,
Speaker 5: which involves the building of.
Speaker 4: A new ANZAC hall.
Speaker 5: And there are some people that have been involved with
Speaker 5: the warm memorial previously in fairness that are opposed to this,
Speaker 5: and they were big subjects of this ABC program. But
Speaker 5: given that the program was about the redevelopment and some
Speaker 5: of the issues around that, I certainly thought, looking at
Speaker 5: this on first glance that it was clear to me
Speaker 5: that they'd tried to indicate there was construction going on
Speaker 5: over the last post ceremony. Now the ABC has investigated
Speaker 5: four Corners. The way the Ombudsman works, as they make
Speaker 5: inquiries to four Corners, they have a look at what
Speaker 5: went to wear and then they make a decision. And
Speaker 5: in this case they've said, look, four Corners has no
Speaker 5: case to answer. But yes, the Ombudsman receives thousands of
Speaker 5: complaints relating to ABC content every year. In twenty twenty
Speaker 5: three twenty four they upheld just two percent, and there's
Speaker 5: always going to be that concern about the ABC Ombardsman.
Speaker 5: They claim they're independent, but I think the way they
Speaker 5: deal with the teams internally would indicate that people can
Speaker 5: make up their own minds about where those findings are.
Speaker 5: I've heard the argument they mark their own homework before
Speaker 5: the ABC rejects that. But there's certainly been stories, and
Speaker 5: the Heston Russell one was another one. Keep in mind
Speaker 5: the ABC also had to remove several Heston Russell stories
Speaker 5: from the end after he successfully sued the public broadcaster
Speaker 5: in twenty twenty three. That cost tax pays at least
Speaker 5: a million dollars in the federal court in legal fees
Speaker 5: and costs. And that was all because the ABC had
Speaker 5: made a mistake back in twenty twenty and refused to apologize,
Speaker 5: refused to take the story down, and so eventually three
Speaker 5: four years later, mister Russell went to court, one judgment
Speaker 5: and finally the ABC took action over what was a
Speaker 5: shocking error on that story.
Speaker 1: And I just I don't understand Kell, and we've talked
Speaker 1: about this before, how no one in the editing of
Speaker 1: that program looked at that and went, oh, I think
Speaker 1: maybe it makes it look like the last post is
Speaker 1: being interfeed with by constructions.
Speaker 6: It's not looked at by one person. It's not just
Speaker 6: the editor in the editing booth and the reporter. It's
Speaker 6: the producer of the segment. It's the executive producer of
Speaker 6: the program. These things are looked at many times. Now,
Speaker 6: it seems to me, as James was saying, they had
Speaker 6: an agenda, and their agenda was they were going to
Speaker 6: take side of the people who posted the development. Now,
Speaker 6: whether it's a good development or a bad development is
Speaker 6: beside the point. They appeared to me to be taking
Speaker 6: a line and running that line, and that.
Speaker 4: Was controlling too many decisions.
Speaker 6: Hence it may not be a manipulation, but it looks
Speaker 6: like manipulation. Now, if I sat there in the editing
Speaker 6: move at the ABCN making current affair stories, when you
Speaker 6: cut from one scene to another, why do you keep
Speaker 6: the sound of the music from one scene running over
Speaker 6: the next scene for as long as it ran. That
Speaker 6: makes no logical sense. And if you were doing a
Speaker 6: balanced story, you would have got rid of it because
Speaker 6: that was about the ceremony.
Speaker 4: This is about the construction.
Speaker 6: So no, I mean, we've got to remember the ABC
Speaker 6: claimed in the Heston Russell case that five gunshots accidentally
Speaker 6: fell onto the soundtrack from the sort of woodwork or something.
Speaker 6: The other problem with this is the one that James
Speaker 6: pointed to, which is the Ombospen system.
Speaker 4: There's something wrong there.
Speaker 2: You've got an internal internal.
Speaker 4: System that's right.
Speaker 6: So what you need to do is to cut money
Speaker 6: out of the ABC's budget and set up a separate
Speaker 6: unit which will say we will independently check the ABC.
Speaker 6: I know what would happen. Whoever, the independent ombos would
Speaker 6: suddenly discover they got no cooperation with the ABC whatsoever.
Speaker 2: That's what we could possibly have, that could we now.
Speaker 1: I think it's been a pretty boring election campaign so far,
Speaker 1: but we had a little bit of intrigue this week
Speaker 1: when Peter Dutton's twenty year old son Harry, fronted a
Speaker 1: pressor on Monday to say he was struggling to see
Speaker 1: how he could afford to buy a home.
Speaker 5: I am saving up for a house and so is
Speaker 5: my sister back and a lot of my mates. But
Speaker 5: as you've probably heard, it's almost impossible to get in.
Speaker 2: And it's a fair point to make.
Speaker 1: House values are now sixteen and a half times the
Speaker 1: average annual income, compared to nine times at the turn
Speaker 1: of the century. But of course, Harry Dutton isn't just
Speaker 1: some ordinary kid off the street. He's the son of
Speaker 1: the opposition leader who happens to have made tens of
Speaker 1: millions of dollars by trading property so predictably, the senior
Speaker 1: Dutton was asked about this. As one reporter put it
Speaker 1: to him on Monday, why won't you support him a
Speaker 1: bit and give him a bit of help to get
Speaker 1: into the housing market, And it quickly became the headline
Speaker 1: across many outlets, essentially suggesting that it was stupid for
Speaker 1: a rich man's kid to say he can't afford a
Speaker 1: house and that his dad ought to punt up some money. Now,
Speaker 1: mister Dutton dodged that question on Monday, but he clarified
Speaker 1: the next day that he probably would help his son.
Speaker 7: Will you help them if they're saving for a deposit
Speaker 7: and proving to be a good financial financially responsible.
Speaker 5: Kids, And I think our households are no different to
Speaker 5: many households, where you want our kids to work hard
Speaker 5: to save and will help them with a deposit at
Speaker 5: some stage.
Speaker 1: But now it was bad media strategy from Dutton and
Speaker 1: his team that they should have anticipated that that question
Speaker 1: would come.
Speaker 2: But surely the point is that you.
Speaker 1: Shouldn't have to rely on the bank of mum and
Speaker 1: dad to buy a home. Pointing out that mister Dutton
Speaker 1: could afford to help his kids isn't quite the gotcha.
Speaker 1: Some journalists might think it is James. I mean, I
Speaker 1: found it astounding that the media, of certain sections of
Speaker 1: the media anyway, seemed to be turning around and suggesting
Speaker 1: that intergenerational wealth is the best way to get into
Speaker 1: the housing market.
Speaker 5: Well, I can understand where and look, I sort of
Speaker 5: feel Caleb that he did leave himself open to some
Speaker 5: criticism here by pulling that stunt and putting his son
Speaker 5: up for the press conference. But I also thought, and
Speaker 5: not for the first time in this campaign, that he
Speaker 5: was treated very unfairly by the press pack And there's
Speaker 5: been multiple examples of this where they've hit him with
Speaker 5: some very very I think unfair questions, And this was
Speaker 5: the kind of thing.
Speaker 4: You can understand.
Speaker 5: There's a perception with some people in Australia that Peter
Speaker 5: Dutton doesn't have that friendly or you know sometimes times,
Speaker 5: that family or that human element, so they're trying to
Speaker 5: humanize him by bringing his family involved. I didn't really
Speaker 5: have a problem with it, and I think, yeah, you're right,
Speaker 5: like we shouldn't have to rely on the bank of
Speaker 5: mum and dad. But guess what most people do. I did,
Speaker 5: to an extent, my brothers did to an extent. Most
Speaker 5: of my friends did to an extent to get in
Speaker 5: the door. And so for Peter Dunton to come out
Speaker 5: and say that is fine. Now, that doesn't mean you
Speaker 5: have to link back to his property portfolio or anything else.
Speaker 5: I think it was a nice moment and I thought
Speaker 5: the way that the press responded to that was was
Speaker 5: quite unfair.
Speaker 4: In my view over the last few.
Speaker 1: Days, I think he should have more of his family
Speaker 1: on the campaign trail, to be honest. Now, earlier I
Speaker 1: gave the ABC wrap over the knuckles, but now I'm
Speaker 1: going to defend them because apart from the reporting on
Speaker 1: the Australian War Memorial, they also came under fire this
Speaker 1: week for broadcasting an episode of Australian Story on Bob Catter.
Speaker 8: Got ninety seconds seven Today we've got to one you
Speaker 8: can too, So Lisa, you can't do it. I'm Bob's
Speaker 8: chief of staff and I've been his chief of staff
Speaker 8: for the last three years.
Speaker 4: Your speech is on the can itself.
Speaker 9: No no, no, no no.
Speaker 8: So he makes me very stressed at times.
Speaker 10: He makes me.
Speaker 4: Exasperated at times.
Speaker 10: You need to start preparing now because we're.
Speaker 11: Going to run out of time.
Speaker 8: My sisters and I have all worked for Dad at
Speaker 8: some point or another, and we call it doing time.
Speaker 1: It was a wide ranging documentary about the father of
Speaker 1: the House, his five decades in politics and his personal life.
Speaker 1: It was a great portrait of someone who's dedicated himself
Speaker 1: to public life.
Speaker 2: But not everyone liked it.
Speaker 1: Ell In p Senator Susan McDonald said it breached the
Speaker 1: ABC's editorial standards. She said, quote, it's my understanding that
Speaker 1: the piece was going to be used as a tribute
Speaker 1: to Bob because they believed he was retiring when it
Speaker 1: became apparent.
Speaker 2: That he wasn't.
Speaker 1: To do an Australian story on somebody who's running for
Speaker 1: election is not a level playing field. I don't see
Speaker 1: them rectifying that by featuring the other candidates. It's an
Speaker 1: extraordinary decision by the ABC to use taxpayers money to
Speaker 1: feature one politician who's up for election. That doesn't meet
Speaker 1: the sniff test of what is a fair and equitable
Speaker 1: representation of the political landscape in that location and use
Speaker 1: of taxpayers money. It fails editorial balance and impartiality. The
Speaker 1: Board of the ABC should be examining how that decision
Speaker 1: was made.
Speaker 2: Now.
Speaker 1: Look, I know the ABC might have a bent against
Speaker 1: the coalition, but I don't think Bob Catter is exactly
Speaker 1: their flavor either, And he's been the member for Kennedy
Speaker 1: since nineteen ninety three. He had sixty three percent of
Speaker 1: the two party preferred vote in twenty twenty two election interference.
Speaker 1: This is not and to pretend it is, frankly, I
Speaker 1: think is desperate. I mean, look, the ABC commits many
Speaker 1: sins kill, but I'm not sure this is.
Speaker 4: What look largely on your side. Three quick points.
Speaker 6: The first is if it was any other candidate in
Speaker 6: a two candidate contest at the time of the election
Speaker 6: for seat X, then running a profile on one and
Speaker 6: not on the other would be wrong.
Speaker 4: But as you say, it's Bob Catter.
Speaker 6: Bob Catter has been the member for Kennedy since Noah
Speaker 6: was a small boy. In fact, I think it was
Speaker 6: Catter who heard the knocking on the inside of the
Speaker 6: door of the ark and opened it to let out
Speaker 6: the animals and Noah and his family. So he's really safe.
Speaker 6: He's going to be re elected now. Having said that,
Speaker 6: so that's okay. I still think it would have been
Speaker 6: an intelligent decision to say let's wait till after the
Speaker 6: third of May. Let's put this episode back till after
Speaker 6: the election is over. He's going to be re elected,
Speaker 6: right the chance of anyone beating him. There are two charges,
Speaker 6: either Buckley's or none, so he's not going to be beaten.
Speaker 6: He'll be re elected after May. Third runner then I
Speaker 6: think that would have been an intelligent and.
Speaker 1: Thoughtful choice perhaps, So look well, look at the result afterwards,
Speaker 1: and we'll see how much the ABC you had to
Speaker 1: do with it.
Speaker 2: Kel Richards, James Willis, thank you so much for.
Speaker 1: Joining me tonight after the break, c and ends it
Speaker 1: doesn't hate America and could meant to be forced to
Speaker 1: break up its behemoth social media empire. All the news
Speaker 1: from the American media in just a moment now just
Speaker 1: thousand gripes. And in the United States this week, c
Speaker 1: and N felt the need to clarify that he does
Speaker 1: not hate America.
Speaker 12: For the record, since we heard President Trump say in
Speaker 12: the Oval Office that CNN hates our country, CNN does
Speaker 12: not hate our country.
Speaker 4: That should go without saying.
Speaker 2: It should go without saying. They say, well, all the
Speaker 2: type breaking news.
Speaker 9: We live in a racist, sexist, homophobic, islamophobic, anti Semitic country.
Speaker 13: Everything they're doing runs against making America great.
Speaker 10: Well, it was never great, so I'm not going to
Speaker 10: say the agampart but making America great. President Trump will
Speaker 10: be at Mount Rushmore, where he'll be standing in front
Speaker 10: of a monument of two slave owners and on land
Speaker 10: wrestled away from Native Americans, told that be focusing on
Speaker 10: the effort to quote tear down our country's history.
Speaker 12: They strongly believe, these human smugglers that this is their
Speaker 12: chance to enter the United State, this is their chance
Speaker 12: of the American dream. That's why they risk everything only
Speaker 12: to find out that it's all alive.
Speaker 9: We got our freedom, our quote unquote freedom, we were
Speaker 9: never restored whole, which is why you hear about reparations.
Speaker 9: So until the United States atones for that and makes
Speaker 9: good on that, we're still living in a racist country.
Speaker 1: You can see why it's hard to beat the allegations.
Speaker 1: And this is the thing about left wing media outlets.
Speaker 1: They hide behind the fact that they exist in Western
Speaker 1: countries and serve people in Western countries.
Speaker 2: To say it's stupid to suggest.
Speaker 1: They would hate those countries, And they may not fundamentally
Speaker 1: hate the country. I assume they don't hate the land.
Speaker 1: But what they do hate is the foundations of the country,
Speaker 1: the fact the country exists as it does, and the
Speaker 1: fact that it is the result of colonialism. They hate
Speaker 1: the economic systems that under in the country, the freedoms
Speaker 1: that we enjoy, because that gets in the way of
Speaker 1: their socialist dreams. They may not hate the country per se,
Speaker 1: but they hate everything that characterizes the culture of the country.
Speaker 1: Joining me to discuss this and plenty more this week
Speaker 1: from the US is Kosher Gata Kosher. It's extraordinary, isn't
Speaker 1: it when I Television network hates to clarify now, we
Speaker 1: don't actually hate the country we operated.
Speaker 13: It really is just back and think that that is
Speaker 13: something she felt the need to say on the air.
Speaker 13: There are a lot of contradictions here, Caleb. I think
Speaker 13: you've set it up perfectly where they don't hate the country,
Speaker 13: but they do hate everything that makes up the country
Speaker 13: in terms of the foundational principle as the culture of
Speaker 13: the system. They may not hate the land, the physical land,
Speaker 13: but then they don't really believe that it's American land.
Speaker 13: A lot of them, I'm not talking about Dana bash
Speaker 13: in particular, but a lot of them, you know, they
Speaker 13: go back to who the land belongs to and first
Speaker 13: nations and all of that which is sweeping around the world.
Speaker 13: And they certainly don't hate freeze speech. They love it
Speaker 13: as is their right to air all sorts of people
Speaker 13: and characters, which is what you played in that mash
Speaker 13: up over there of the kinds of things that their
Speaker 13: guests and contributors say. But they have many, many instances
Speaker 13: where they have either criticized other people exercising free speech
Speaker 13: or very quick to censor and deplatform others. So lots
Speaker 13: of contradictions, but that's the world in which we live in.
Speaker 13: It does show up in the numbers, that is the
Speaker 13: big picture. Whereas CNN wants the pioneer of twenty four
Speaker 13: to seven news and its heyday was getting millions of
Speaker 13: viewers and now it's down to half a million and
Speaker 13: sort of like a melting ice cube where that decline
Speaker 13: continues and will for the foreseeable future.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, perhaps people don't want to be served up
Speaker 1: the fact that the people they're watching don't like their country.
Speaker 1: And another interesting thing this week, Mark Zuckerberg and met
Speaker 1: have been going through an anti trust court case this week.
Speaker 1: He's a report that we had earlier in the week
Speaker 1: from Peter Stefanovic.
Speaker 14: Well Mark Zuckerberg, He's returned to court for day two
Speaker 14: have met his anti E T TRUS trial, which could
Speaker 14: lead to the parent company breaking away from Instagram and WhatsApp.
Speaker 14: The tech giant will defend claims it holds a social
Speaker 14: media monopoly, accused by Donald Trump's Trade Commission of neutralizing
Speaker 14: its competitors. It's understood the Facebook founder has lobbied the
Speaker 14: US President in recent weeks to have the case dropped.
Speaker 2: Now kosher.
Speaker 1: This is centered around Mark Zuckerberg's purchases of Instagram and
Speaker 1: WhatsApp and whether the company ought to be broken up.
Speaker 2: What exactly is this case about and what's the latest.
Speaker 13: Yes, so it is an anti trust case, and antitrust
Speaker 13: in general has been certainly gaining momentum in the past
Speaker 13: five six years in the US. In this case, this
Speaker 13: has been brought by the FTC. There are similar cases
Speaker 13: being brought against Google and Amazon by state attorneys general,
Speaker 13: by the Department of Justice, by the SEC. All around
Speaker 13: that being of antitrust, which is that alleging that they
Speaker 13: have engaged in very anti competitive behaviors buying up where
Speaker 13: they've got seventy eight d ninety percent market share in
Speaker 13: the places in which they play, and doing what they
Speaker 13: call this buy or bury strategy, where if they can't
Speaker 13: outcompete a company, they're so big that they can just
Speaker 13: acquire them and become even more powerful. And antitrust law
Speaker 13: has long been behind the eight ball in the US
Speaker 13: because the end benefit to the consumer since most of
Speaker 13: these services are free, has been hard for them to prove.
Speaker 13: But finally it is something that is gaining steam in
Speaker 13: terms of whether or not it's going to happen. It's
Speaker 13: honestly anybody's guests. There's a lot of wood to chop
Speaker 13: before we get there. It has survived, the case has
Speaker 13: survived two attempts from Meta to dismiss it, so it
Speaker 13: is going to trial right now. Hence he's showing up
Speaker 13: in court. It's that same judge Boseburg who's been in
Speaker 13: the news and at loggerheads with Trump right now presiding
Speaker 13: over the case. So it really is anybody's guest. I'm
Speaker 13: not sure how far they will go, but it's certainly
Speaker 13: putting them in the spotlight.
Speaker 1: Well, how much of Zackerberg's sucking up you might call
Speaker 1: it to Trump? After he was elected in November do
Speaker 1: you think might be linked to this?
Speaker 4: You know, it could be.
Speaker 13: He is worth about two hundred billion dollars because of
Speaker 13: his thirteen point five percent stake in Meta, So yes,
Speaker 13: he would have if a forced divestiture were to happen
Speaker 13: based on antitrust law, he would experience a dent, but
Speaker 13: not really a life altering dent. Even if it's ten
Speaker 13: or twenty percent of his net worth. He's still going
Speaker 13: to be worth north of one hundred and fifty billion
Speaker 13: US dollars, So maybe that's coming into play a little
Speaker 13: bit for it. It could also be on some level,
Speaker 13: I don't want to say a genuine change of heart,
Speaker 13: but a little bit of a change of heart where
Speaker 13: the cultural zeitgeist really has shifted from where it was
Speaker 13: so much into Trump hating into sort of admiring him,
Speaker 13: even in some ways surviving the assassination attempt and all that.
Speaker 13: Zuckerberg has talked about that in different forums, So who knows.
Speaker 13: It's probably a mixture of different things in there. But yeah,
Speaker 13: I'm sure these people all lobby. They lobby with their wallet,
Speaker 13: and they lobby with curring personal favor, and I'm sure
Speaker 13: that's part of their recipe as well.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Well, if he wants to lose a bit more money,
Speaker 1: I'll share seal him some shades and some of the horses.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's a pretty good way to lose you
Speaker 1: maney fast. Now, earlier this week, a jury took less
Speaker 1: than a how to convict to victor Antonio Martin is
Speaker 1: Hanandez over the murder and rape of Rachel Morin. He's
Speaker 1: an illegal immigrant and Moren's mother, Patty, turned up to
Speaker 1: the White House during the week to address the press,
Speaker 1: and our sister station in the US Fox News they
Speaker 1: broadcast to address live, but MSNBC covered a Bernie Sanders
Speaker 1: rally and interviewed a journalist about it, and over at
Speaker 1: CNN they were talking about Californian Governor Gavin Newsom and
Speaker 1: ran a segment on the NBA. Now, it's pretty standard
Speaker 1: for news channels to take press conferences in full these days.
Speaker 2: Why would they.
Speaker 1: Cut away when the mother of a murder and rape
Speaker 1: victim starts describing what an illegal immigrant did to her daughter.
Speaker 13: Now, I think the only conclusion we can draw is
Speaker 13: that it doesn't fit their narrative, or their product strategy,
Speaker 13: or their ideology, which is all ruled into really one
Speaker 13: and the scene and what that is for all of them.
Speaker 13: They're at entire thesis is that immigration ultimately is good.
Speaker 13: It's a net force for good and these are just
Speaker 13: persecuted people coming into the country. And Trump and his
Speaker 13: administration are terrible for engaging the biggest deportation effort, as
Speaker 13: he campaigned on these kinds of things that humanize the victims,
Speaker 13: and the human tool of illegal immigration is something that
Speaker 13: we've seen, whether it's CNN and MSNBC not covering it,
Speaker 13: whether you saw not a single Democrat in Congress of
Speaker 13: the State of the Union getting up to applaud the
Speaker 13: signing of the Lake and Riley Act, Lake and Riley
Speaker 13: being another American victim of illegal immigration, it just doesn't
Speaker 13: fit their narrative. And so we're going to expect to
Speaker 13: see more of that. And it goes back to the
Speaker 13: earlier point where that is leading to a dwindling base
Speaker 13: or audience of people that just want to keep eating
Speaker 13: what they're serving up rather than getting a true picture
Speaker 13: of these issues and what's going on in the country.
Speaker 1: I talked about seeing in earlier. While we're on the
Speaker 1: topic of illegal immigrants, Trump faced off with seeing in
Speaker 1: reporter Caitlin Collins this week over the deportation of an
Speaker 1: ill Salvadorian man. His name's Kilma Abrago Gasse Series allegedly
Speaker 1: a member of a gang. So he was sent back
Speaker 1: to Il Salvador, where he's now in prison. But the
Speaker 1: courts have ruled that he should be brought back to
Speaker 1: the US. Take a look at the scaffold.
Speaker 7: You plan to ask President okately to help return the
Speaker 7: man who your administration says was mistakenly deported, the man
Speaker 7: who was mistakenly deported to El Salvador.
Speaker 15: Well, let me ask Pam, would you asked to answer
Speaker 15: that question?
Speaker 1: Sure?
Speaker 12: President, First and foremost, he was illegally in our country.
Speaker 12: He had been illegally in our country. And in twenty nineteen,
Speaker 12: two courts, an immigration court and an appellate immigration court
Speaker 12: ruled that he was a member of MS thirteen and
Speaker 12: he was illegally in our country right now. It was
Speaker 12: a paperwork, it was additional paperwork had needed to be done.
Speaker 12: That's up to El Salvador if they want to return now.
Speaker 7: The President, you said that if the Supreme Court said
Speaker 7: someone needed to be returned, that you would abide by that.
Speaker 7: You said that on Air Force one just a few
Speaker 7: days ago, and.
Speaker 9: They said that it must be facilitated.
Speaker 6: Why don't you just say, isn't it wonderful that we're
Speaker 6: keeping criminals out of our country?
Speaker 2: Why can't you just say that?
Speaker 1: Why do you go over and over and that's why
Speaker 1: nobody watches you anymore?
Speaker 2: From you know, you have no credibility. Well Collins, they
Speaker 2: went on.
Speaker 1: Aaron said that Trump saying to backtrack on previous promises
Speaker 1: to abuide the Supreme Court on these what's the story here?
Speaker 13: So here you know what they're doing is in the
Speaker 13: big picture, Trump is enjoying a resounding success on the
Speaker 13: entire topic of immigration. It's what he ran on and
Speaker 13: won on twice. He's completely taken deportations to a next
Speaker 13: level scale. Border crossings are down to virtually zero, and
Speaker 13: these types of cases are being publicized and the entire electorate,
Speaker 13: including Democrats, are with him.
Speaker 4: Now.
Speaker 13: That is quite a turn about in that issue from
Speaker 13: where it was even a short time ago. In the
Speaker 13: midst of that resounding success, there are little cases here
Speaker 13: and there where they might have a little bit of
Speaker 13: a bump or the other side gets a little bit
Speaker 13: of a win. That's what this case is, and so
Speaker 13: what Caitlin Collins and others are doing is they like
Speaker 13: to zoom into that minutia since they have already lost
Speaker 13: on the big picture and will continue to do so.
Speaker 13: And basically with the Supreme Court rule this went all
Speaker 13: the way up to the Supreme Court, is that this
Speaker 13: person claimed persecution in his home country of El Salvador,
Speaker 13: and so while he could be deported because he is
Speaker 13: an illegal in the US, he doesn't have to be
Speaker 13: deported to El Salvador. But that happened anyway, and the
Speaker 13: ruling said that the US government has to facilitate quote
Speaker 13: facilitate his return. That is a legal term of art.
Speaker 13: Many say the Supreme Court did it deliberately, which means
Speaker 13: that they don't have to actively retrieve him back into
Speaker 13: the country. But if he were to come back somehow,
Speaker 13: maybe they wouldn't stop it. That's kind of how the
Speaker 13: Trump administration is interpreting it. And the president of El
Speaker 13: Salvador was sitting right there and he said, he is
Speaker 13: a citizen of my country and I'm not going to
Speaker 13: smuggle him back into the US. So it's kind of
Speaker 13: a done deal. And they just keep going to the
Speaker 13: minutia of the law while they continue to lose on
Speaker 13: the big picture and where the American public stands on
Speaker 13: this issue.
Speaker 1: Don't you gotta thank you so much for your time?
Speaker 1: Coming up in just a minute, Jared Henderson writes the
Speaker 1: IB he's coverage of its election debate, and when will
Speaker 1: the journalists challenge Labour's rubbery numbers on nuclear energy?
Speaker 2: Don't go away?
Speaker 1: Joining me now as he does every week is scar News,
Speaker 1: Australia's media watchdog columnist Jared Henderson Jared, good to see
Speaker 1: here one the ABC this week had the second Prime
Speaker 1: ministerial debate, that the leader's debate. Here's a bit of
Speaker 1: what their special inside is programmed it afterwards.
Speaker 15: In the end, maybe you would give it to Anthony Alvinezi.
Speaker 15: But I don't think that was a knockout bo.
Speaker 4: What do you reckon, Jacob?
Speaker 14: I agree with the knockout blow assessment.
Speaker 8: We didn't really get a debate of competing inspiring visions.
Speaker 8: We had two leaders who have a lot to lose
Speaker 8: out of this, and I think we saw that with
Speaker 8: a very defensive approach from both of them.
Speaker 2: One opinion amongst the whole lot.
Speaker 15: It would see everyone agrees with everyone else a pretty
Speaker 15: normally ABC program. But this concept of a knockout I mean,
Speaker 15: when you got two experienced politicians like Peter Dutton and
Speaker 15: Anthony Albernesi, the chance of a knockout blow is virtually
Speaker 15: non existent.
Speaker 16: It never happens. Now. Sure with Joe Biden and Donald Trump.
Speaker 15: Last year there was, but you'd have to say that
Speaker 15: then President Biden had probably had two eight second count
Speaker 15: outs before he got in the ring, so he was pretty.
Speaker 16: Well knocked out before he arrived.
Speaker 15: But that the idea that you have knockout blows, I've
Speaker 15: never seen one. In watching Australian political debates for many,
Speaker 15: many years, I've never seen a knockout blow. I've seen
Speaker 15: some people do better than others, and very often the
Speaker 15: person you think often did better that it doesn't come
Speaker 15: up in the vote either. So the concept of a
Speaker 15: knockout blow is really just a cliche and everyone essentially
Speaker 15: agreed with them. When else I found I found it
Speaker 15: a bit dull actually because there wasn't a live audience.
Speaker 15: There was only one presenter, David Spears, and it was
Speaker 15: pretty dull because there wasn't much It wasn't much movement
Speaker 15: around the place, but apart from that, both people did competently.
Speaker 15: You pick up an error on either side balances out.
Speaker 1: They did actually get an audience for it, though, and
Speaker 1: I was wondering, you know, what the Freedware audience would
Speaker 1: be for a political debate in twenty twenty five, But
Speaker 1: they had a million average and one point seven overall,
Speaker 1: which isn't too bad for free towere TV these days.
Speaker 4: No, it's quite good, but I.
Speaker 16: Don't think it changed as many.
Speaker 15: I mean, as you know, what matters is what people
Speaker 15: say that gets clipped and gets put in the news
Speaker 15: of a night. So they had a good audience, they
Speaker 15: didn't have a live audience. I think the problem with
Speaker 15: the ABC live audience is invariably they're stacked because the
Speaker 15: people who watch the ABC invariably on the left, because
Speaker 15: they've lost so many of their conservative people who used
Speaker 15: to watch or do you used to listen to radio
Speaker 15: and watch television. They've lost them, and so what's left
Speaker 15: is essentially a soft left to a hard left audience,
Speaker 15: sort of from teals across to the Greens, with labor
Speaker 15: somewhere in the middle.
Speaker 1: I know it was Nine's thing, not the ABC's, but
Speaker 1: bring back the worm. I say, now the ABC's being
Speaker 1: to bring things back has brought back the vote compass
Speaker 1: survey for this lie.
Speaker 2: You have some concerns about its accuracy.
Speaker 15: Well, they present this as an example of what Australians think,
Speaker 15: but as an example of what people who read ABC
Speaker 15: online think. And so if you look at the way
Speaker 15: they've done it, they put Labor very close to the
Speaker 15: center of the and they put the Greens a fair
Speaker 15: way away, whereas they don't put the coalition close to
Speaker 15: the center, and they put them close to one nation.
Speaker 2: So this is you can see on screen.
Speaker 1: So you can take a test online and it tells
Speaker 1: you where you sit on the police.
Speaker 15: So I didn't put where I sat there as someone
Speaker 15: did it for me. You just put out if you're
Speaker 15: putting neutral to everything, this is what they think. That's
Speaker 15: what the people who put this together think about the coalition.
Speaker 15: They think they're close to one nation and they think
Speaker 15: Labor is a long way from the Greens.
Speaker 16: Well, some Labour people are a long way with the Greens.
Speaker 15: The labor right is, but the labor socialist left is
Speaker 15: not a long way from the Greens at all.
Speaker 1: No, and I suppose if you're using this system and
Speaker 1: you're using it to see where you sit.
Speaker 2: On the spectrum.
Speaker 1: I wonder what else they doing with the data they're
Speaker 1: collecting here as well, because they're asking serious questions about
Speaker 1: how people feel about politics.
Speaker 2: Well, what happens on the back end with all of
Speaker 2: that sort of thing.
Speaker 16: You know, as a commercial operation. No one seems to say.
Speaker 15: I mean, the ABC contracts us out, contracts out and
Speaker 15: what happens to the results?
Speaker 16: I don't really know. They haven't told us.
Speaker 15: But it's it's not how you judge what Australians think
Speaker 15: by that.
Speaker 16: It just gives you an example.
Speaker 15: As Joe Gersh wrote a good piece in the Australian
Speaker 15: Media Section last Monday, he made a point that it
Speaker 15: shows really where the ABC stands. It shows that the
Speaker 15: ABC is fairly well to the left as the think
Speaker 15: from the coalition.
Speaker 16: It tells us that about but we know that anyway,
Speaker 16: I guess.
Speaker 2: Yeah we do.
Speaker 1: Indeed, speaking of which ABC ready, A National Breakfast host
Speaker 1: Steve Kanaan was interviewing Education Minister Jason Clear at this
Speaker 1: week and Clear came out with this same number that
Speaker 1: is being parroted all the time. Albanezy did it during
Speaker 1: the debate this week, everyone's saying it that it's six
Speaker 1: hundred billion dollars for the coalition's new you're planted to
Speaker 1: get off the ground.
Speaker 2: He's a little bit of the radio interview.
Speaker 11: The Prime Minister could not tell us in the debate
Speaker 11: last night when power bills will be coming down. Can
Speaker 11: you help him out with an answer? Well, what I'll
Speaker 11: tell you is that energy bills will be lower under
Speaker 11: Labor than they will be under Peter Dunn and the Liberals.
Speaker 11: And the simple reason for that is building six hundred
Speaker 11: billion dollars worth of nuclear reactors' costs.
Speaker 2: And he didn't pull him up on it.
Speaker 1: And I've not actually heard anyone pull any Labor polly
Speaker 1: up yet on the six hundred billion dollar figure.
Speaker 15: Well, I don't blame Jason Clair for saying that or
Speaker 15: the Prime Minister. I mean they're scuring points in a
Speaker 15: political campaign, but someone should pick them up. I mean
Speaker 15: this is put out by the Smart Energy Council, which
Speaker 15: is a climate actives organizations had association with Simon Holmes
Speaker 15: a court which was pointed out well on The Australian
Speaker 15: a couple of days ago by Sarah Aison, And it's
Speaker 15: put out by them and.
Speaker 16: It's very clearly in operation.
Speaker 15: Now what they do is they run it from the
Speaker 15: estimen of theirs is from one hundred and sixteen billion
Speaker 15: to six hundred billion. So Labour's taken the top and
Speaker 15: I can understand why they've done that. But someone is
Speaker 15: a clever journalist like Steve Canane should say, well, I
Speaker 15: mean this is a climate activist has put out this figure.
Speaker 15: You've taken the top figure. The model figure from the
Speaker 15: Coalition is substantially half of that or a bit less.
Speaker 15: There should be challenged. But what's happening is that if
Speaker 15: you look at at politicians on the left on the
Speaker 15: ABC rarely get challenged. But it's a pretty important thing
Speaker 15: to challenge those kinds of assessments because how do we
Speaker 15: know where the figure's coming from. You think it's an
Speaker 15: authentic figure, but it's not an authentic figure. It's the
Speaker 15: figure of an activist group exactly.
Speaker 1: And of course the game is if you say the
Speaker 1: figure enough times, people will start to believe it. Things
Speaker 1: that aren't facts start to become facts because you've heard
Speaker 1: it so many times that you think is the truth.
Speaker 1: Jared Henderson, thank you so much for joining me tonight
Speaker 1: and that's all we have time for this evening. Thank
Speaker 1: you for your company.
Speaker 2: Up next, news that, and then