Speaker 1: This is the Media Show with Jack Outing. Welcome to
Speaker 1: the Media Show. Tonight. We'll discuss a feud between Media
Speaker 1: Watch and a star ABC reporter, as well as a
Speaker 1: major media union attacking Peter Dunnan. But first to the
Speaker 1: vice presidential debate, which exposed several media falsehoods. Now, it
Speaker 1: was a refreshing exchange of ideas, not dominated by personalities
Speaker 1: but policies.
Speaker 2: Look, I will be the first to tell you I
Speaker 2: have poured my heart into my community. I've tried to
Speaker 2: do the best I can, but I've not been perfect,
Speaker 2: and I'm a knucklehead at times, but it's always been
Speaker 2: about that. All I said on this was is I
Speaker 2: got there that summer and misspoke on this, So I
Speaker 2: will just that's what I've said.
Speaker 3: Honestly, Tim, I think you got a tough job here
Speaker 3: because you've got to play whack a mole. You've got
Speaker 3: to pretend that Donald Trump didn't deliver rising take hopey, which.
Speaker 1: Of course he did.
Speaker 3: You've got to pretend that Donald Trump didn't deliver lower inflation,
Speaker 3: which of course he did. And then you've simultaneously got
Speaker 3: to defend Kamala Harris's atrocious economic record, which has made
Speaker 3: gas groceries and housing unaffordable fair American citizens.
Speaker 4: Just to clarify for our viewers, Springfield, Ohio does have
Speaker 4: a large number of Haitian migrants who have legal status
Speaker 4: temporary protected maura.
Speaker 1: But thank you, senator.
Speaker 4: We have so much to get to, Margaret.
Speaker 1: I think it's important to turn out of the economy.
Speaker 1: Thanks Margaret.
Speaker 3: The rules were that you got to be in a
Speaker 3: fact check, and since you're fact checking me, I think
Speaker 3: it's important to say what's actually going on.
Speaker 4: Thank you, senator.
Speaker 1: Rotation of a legal immigration Margaret Bye.
Speaker 4: Thank you senator for describing the legal process.
Speaker 1: Have so much to get to.
Speaker 2: The senator so much the book since nineteen ninety Thank you, gentlemen.
Speaker 1: We want to have map has not been on the books.
Speaker 4: Something gentlemen, the audience can't hear you because your mics
Speaker 4: are cut.
Speaker 1: Both candidates were measured in tone, which allowed for the
Speaker 1: philosophical differences between both parties to play the lead role.
Speaker 1: It also shattered alt I told to you by the
Speaker 1: American media. There has been an insidious and coordinated media
Speaker 1: attack on the character of Senator James David Vance now
Speaker 1: add Holme and attacks on conservatives are nothing new, but
Speaker 1: this one was simply weird.
Speaker 3: I think Kamala Harris is going to pick anyone as
Speaker 3: weird and creepy as Jadie Vance.
Speaker 5: It demonstrates and shows us exactly what he believes in
Speaker 5: by selecting a JD.
Speaker 6: Vance, who is quite.
Speaker 1: You know, as the campaign said.
Speaker 4: Weird, the agenda, the way they talk to people, the
Speaker 4: way they address people.
Speaker 1: It is bizarre. It's weird, it is weird. These are
Speaker 1: weird people.
Speaker 2: On the other side, Donald Trump seems to be drifting
Speaker 2: away from his own nominee because he's had so many
Speaker 2: weird views.
Speaker 7: Unfortunately, Events's weird views are not even winning praise from
Speaker 7: within his own party.
Speaker 4: Donald Trump and his weirdo running mate and the Republican
Speaker 4: apparatus behind them.
Speaker 1: Will regroup yours. It's not just that she said a
Speaker 1: lot of things that are weird. It's not just a
Speaker 1: weird style that he brings. It's that this leads to
Speaker 1: weird policies. But when the public got to hear directly
Speaker 1: from Vance, many were shocked that this supposedly evil caricature
Speaker 1: of a Republican that they had been told to fear
Speaker 1: was not only reasonable, but he was articulate and a
Speaker 1: lot of people witness this performance. Analytics company Nielsen estimates
Speaker 1: that forty three million Americans watched the debate on TV,
Speaker 1: with many millions more opting to stream it. Polling also
Speaker 1: suggests that the debate was received positively by voters. Now,
Speaker 1: this of course infuriated the hacks at MSNBC who have
Speaker 1: been overtly campaigning for the Democrats. They want you to
Speaker 1: ignore what you saw and what you heard because they
Speaker 1: claim it was a lie. That wasn't the real jd
Speaker 1: Evance that they have come to loathe and fear.
Speaker 6: There were so many niceties on their debate station. I
Speaker 6: am just kind of like, well, if you agree so
Speaker 6: much with jd Vance, why should they vote for you.
Speaker 6: I fully believe that Governor Walls went out there tonight
Speaker 6: and did what was practicing debate prep, did what the
Speaker 6: strategy was that the team put together. That was not
Speaker 6: the Governor Walls that I had seen out on the
Speaker 6: campaign trip. That's not the Governor Walls that I had
Speaker 6: seen during the beepstakes, right, that was not the jd
Speaker 6: Vance that I know to be true.
Speaker 1: I mean goodness, jd Vance was on that stage.
Speaker 6: He was sorry about Amber Thurman he was sorry about
Speaker 6: a boy. He was sorry about a lot of stuff.
Speaker 6: We get things wrong, but do you give it the policy?
Speaker 1: And The New York Times published perhaps the most radical
Speaker 1: and unhitched commentary of the debate. They allowed columnist Masha
Speaker 1: Geeson to make the argument that the act of debating
Speaker 1: itself was wrong because it puts Democrats and Republicans on
Speaker 1: a level footing, and because we all know that Republicans
Speaker 1: are evil monsters. By allowing the debate, we are justifying
Speaker 1: the acts of evil.
Speaker 5: I went into Tuesday's vice presidential debate with a sense
Speaker 5: of dread because I thought that the last debate was
Speaker 5: kind of a disaster. And by a disaster, I don't
Speaker 5: mean that Kamala Harris didn't hold her own against Donald Trump,
Speaker 5: or that Donald Trump scored any points in the debate,
Speaker 5: but the fact of the debate itself, and the format
Speaker 5: of the debate, which placed these two candidates on a
Speaker 5: sort of level footing, treated them both as normal politicians
Speaker 5: and treated the things they said as normal political statements.
Speaker 1: Well, that's crazy. And dare I say weird stuff from
Speaker 1: an outlet which is so self indulgent it refers to
Speaker 1: itself as the newspaper of record. The paper of Record
Speaker 1: advocating against debate is perhaps the best way to sum
Speaker 1: up modern journalism. Well, joining me now is the Australians
Speaker 1: media writer Sophie Elsworth and Sky and News contributor Louise Roberts. Louise,
Speaker 1: let's start with you. What did you make of the debate?
Speaker 3: Well?
Speaker 8: Walslocks me when he said that he was a knucklehead.
Speaker 8: I think that's not something you really want a presidential
Speaker 8: candidate we're talking about in a way, whereas I think J.
Speaker 8: D Vance was very presidential. Dare I say he was
Speaker 8: very youthful. He didn't have an issue with tackling the
Speaker 8: fact checkers as well, which I thought was a very
Speaker 8: bold move and it made a very good impression I
Speaker 8: think on myself as well as I think audiences around
Speaker 8: the world too. So I just don't understand Walts at all.
Speaker 8: I don't understand why has to embellish his history and
Speaker 8: claim to be in gentleman square when in fact he
Speaker 8: was in Nebraska and he's forever having to sort of
Speaker 8: overcome the sort of goofy, bumbling suburban dad routine that
Speaker 8: he's created in some sort of effort to win over
Speaker 8: the white male votes. So for me, it was definitely
Speaker 8: Advance was the winner.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I agree, I agree with all of that, and
Speaker 1: Sophie he Waltz appeared to be intellectually outmatched. And I
Speaker 1: think the point that I made in my editorial, which is,
Speaker 1: I think for people that have been watching the media
Speaker 1: cover you don't quite know who jd. Vance is, who
Speaker 1: were just getting little snippets of information from bulletins and headlines,
Speaker 1: they would think that he is this crazy, weirdo, ultra
Speaker 1: conservative nutjob, because that's what they've been telling him, and
Speaker 1: they've obviously polled that answer, they've obviously market tested it.
Speaker 1: It's no reason that they were all using this word
Speaker 1: weird and you could see it all over Twitter. What
Speaker 1: do you think of the way that jd Vance was
Speaker 1: able to pivot from this and do you think he
Speaker 1: was able to effectively show the American people who he
Speaker 1: was directly?
Speaker 7: Well?
Speaker 9: I think he spoke quite well throughout the debate. He
Speaker 9: did challenge the moderators there, and you can see that
Speaker 9: they were quite quick to try and stop him from
Speaker 9: doing that. But when you call someone weird, it's kind
Speaker 9: of hard to push that away and fight against If
Speaker 9: someone says you're weird, how do you defend yourself against that?
Speaker 1: So it's kind of.
Speaker 9: A label that sticks and then does go throughout all
Speaker 9: the media. But I do think these debates are really
Speaker 9: important so that the American public can make their own
Speaker 9: minds up. With both of the vice presidential candidates speaking
Speaker 9: to their points, and I thought, you know, they were
Speaker 9: quite fair to each other. But I think the American
Speaker 9: public are not silly. They can see sometimes these moderators
Speaker 9: favorably on their democratic side, and I don't think that's
Speaker 9: always a good thing because they can see through the
Speaker 9: bias there. But I think the more of these debates
Speaker 9: we have in the lead up to the election, I think.
Speaker 1: The better, Yeah, definitely. And Louise, I think the other
Speaker 1: point to make as well, what Sophie was saying about
Speaker 1: the fact checking, the way that jd Vance handled that
Speaker 1: was rather calm. And I think the mistake that Donald
Speaker 1: Trump made at the last debate was he got baited
Speaker 1: into this kind of the petty semantics over crowd sizes,
Speaker 1: whereas jd Vance was able to, I guess, give life
Speaker 1: to some of these policies that they're running on and
Speaker 1: take a little bit of the drama out of it,
Speaker 1: even though he was pushing back against some of these
Speaker 1: bizarre fact checks.
Speaker 8: That's right. He took a very presidential time. I felt
Speaker 8: he took control. He sort of challenged it, but then
Speaker 8: shut it down and realized the whole point of this
Speaker 8: debate was to talk about the two men in question
Speaker 8: and their policies. So yeah, impressive.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, let's move on now. Because Opposition leader Peter
Speaker 1: Dutton locked horns with an ABC reporter this week who
Speaker 1: incredibly compared Israel to the murderous terror organization has Belah.
Speaker 9: Groups have commented on the hypocrisy of that situation because
Speaker 9: there are no bands currently on Israeli flags being reased
Speaker 9: despite forty five thousand people Jarney at the heads.
Speaker 10: Any Well, Israel is a democracy, It's not run by
Speaker 10: a terrorist organization. HEZBLO is a terrorist organization. They're a
Speaker 10: listed terrorist organization. And if people are in favor of
Speaker 10: a terrorist organization, they should declare it and that authority
Speaker 10: should deal with it. What determined, what.
Speaker 2: Determines what happens?
Speaker 10: Even though men, where are you from? I'm sorry? Which organization? ABC?
Speaker 10: So what's the question from the ABC? Just to be
Speaker 10: very clear. What was the question you asked? Now you
Speaker 10: asked the question about the listing, So I just want
Speaker 10: I want you to just ask that question again.
Speaker 9: What determines the cast?
Speaker 10: Well, I had presumed up until this point at least
Speaker 10: that the ABC supported the government's laws, and the government
Speaker 10: has passed laws supported on a bipartisan basis, but not
Speaker 10: by the ABC. It seems in relation to the prescribing
Speaker 10: or the listing of a terrorist organization. Hezbla under Australian
Speaker 10: law is a list of terrorist organization. Now, if the
Speaker 10: ABC doesn't support that, they should be very clear about it,
Speaker 10: because I think that's quite a departure. But you asked
Speaker 10: me why why our country has listed Hesbela. They're a
Speaker 10: terrorist organization that they organized terrorist attacks. And if that
Speaker 10: is not clear to the ABC, then I think the
Speaker 10: ABC is in greater trouble. And even I first imagined
Speaker 10: that was the main question.
Speaker 1: Now, just to make it really clear what you just watched,
Speaker 1: there was a reporter asking why Jews holding Israeli flags
Speaker 1: were not being targeted under terrorism laws the way that
Speaker 1: Hesbelah flags were being targeted. Now it's no surprise that
Speaker 1: the ABC attempted to distance itself from this The Australian
Speaker 1: reports ABC disowns questions to Peter Dutton over Hesbela status
Speaker 1: as a terrorist organization now and the quote given to
Speaker 1: Sophie Elsworth, who is here on the panel with us,
Speaker 1: was questions at a press conference today were not a
Speaker 1: piece of reporting nor a position being taken by the ABC.
Speaker 1: HESBLA is listed as a terrorist organization by the Australian
Speaker 1: government and the recognizes that in its coverage now. This response,
Speaker 1: which is quite reasonable, infuriated the journalism Union MEAA, which
Speaker 1: posted a very heated statement condemning both Peter Dutton and
Speaker 1: the ABC. They said, the National Committee of MEAA Media
Speaker 1: has unanimously passed a resolution in support of ABC journalist
Speaker 1: and Usher should following her encounter with an aggressive Peter
Speaker 1: Dutton earlier this week. Let's bring the panel back into
Speaker 1: discuss Sophie great reporting on this issue. The media union
Speaker 1: inserting itself into this, I think that's fine to stand
Speaker 1: up for journalists, but for them to characterize Peter Dutton
Speaker 1: as being aggressive, for me, that's nonsensical. He was not
Speaker 1: being aggressive. I think you could make the point that
Speaker 1: Anthony Albanisi gets a lot shorter with journalists and Peter
Speaker 1: Dutton ever, was at any point in that clip his voice,
Speaker 1: his tone was low, it was measured. Did you see
Speaker 1: that as him being aggressive towards the journalist.
Speaker 9: Well, the Media Union have to be really careful Jack
Speaker 9: when they put out these statements, because they just ostracize
Speaker 9: some of their member base and that is not a
Speaker 9: wise thing when the ME double A is always desperately
Speaker 9: trying to seek new members to join up, and I
Speaker 9: think this is an unwise thing for them to do.
Speaker 9: It could have been handled much better. And they do
Speaker 9: take their positions to protect particular journalists for particular causes
Speaker 9: that fit in with their ideological views, and this can
Speaker 9: be problematical also for the ME double A. So this
Speaker 9: is a pretty you know, eye opening way for them
Speaker 9: to describe the opposition leader. And it's also a concern
Speaker 9: whether some of these journalists are becoming activists or are
Speaker 9: they're actually they're reporting facts and that's where sometimes the
Speaker 9: media gets themselves into trouble.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's a great point. Louis Kim Williams, the new
Speaker 1: chair of the ABC, has said multiple times now that
Speaker 1: he doesn't want young activist journalists to be viewing stories
Speaker 1: in that particular lens. In this situation, it's clear that
Speaker 1: the reporter was viewing it through this lens or they
Speaker 1: were told to ask a specific question. I don't think
Speaker 1: it's that, because the question seemed a bit too conversational
Speaker 1: to be scripted very specifically, and the ABC hasn't really
Speaker 1: backed her in. But this seems to be a clear
Speaker 1: example of a breach of that guideline. Well, what do
Speaker 1: you think about all of this?
Speaker 8: Well, it does because as young journalists and so ife,
Speaker 8: you would know that as well. When you're trained, you're
Speaker 8: asked to see both sides of the store, and you
Speaker 8: don't bring your bias or your opinion to a new
Speaker 8: situation like that. And I think to actually label for
Speaker 8: the Union, to label Peter Dutton as a bully is
Speaker 8: ridiculous because he's asking for clarification and we know that
Speaker 8: Israel's not a terrorist organization, so and hesbler is that's
Speaker 8: why they're banned. So to make out that he's bullying
Speaker 8: a journalist, it's a very very sort of sloppy trope.
Speaker 8: I think to say that, oh, he's bullied her, therefore
Speaker 8: he's in the wrong, when will he is just asking
Speaker 8: for clarification, and I think any situation we have to
Speaker 8: really hold journals to account. Don't push your own agenda,
Speaker 8: just report the facts.
Speaker 1: It makes such a good point. I mean, have a
Speaker 1: bit of resilience. There's always argie barji a press conferences.
Speaker 1: That's a journal's job. We're all criticized. I'd love one
Speaker 1: of these ABC journalists to spend one day in the
Speaker 1: shoes of a news corp journalist getting even one iota
Speaker 1: of the criticism that they that all of our colleagues
Speaker 1: get on social media constantly. They would not be able
Speaker 1: to handle it. But let's go to a quick break
Speaker 1: when we're back Tony Armstrong and the ABC's Media Watch
Speaker 1: clash Welcome Back Indigenous. ABC presenter Tony Armstrong was criticized
Speaker 1: in a Media Watch segment this week for performing unapproved
Speaker 1: commercial voice sofa work for an insurance company.
Speaker 3: A help company would cover you no matter who's driving
Speaker 3: your car, because you should be able to lend your
Speaker 3: friends and family your vehicle.
Speaker 7: That's NRMA selling its pivot from an insurance company to
Speaker 7: a help company, which sounds much cuddlier and for maximum umph.
Speaker 7: The rebranding coincided with nine's Olympic coverage with NRMA, a
Speaker 7: major advertising partner, and the ads are on Radio two.
Speaker 8: At NRMA Insurance. We're responding to the growing severity and
Speaker 8: frequency of floods, fuires, high winds and hail events by
Speaker 8: establishing help.
Speaker 7: Nation By now, you probably don't need much help in
Speaker 7: putting two and two together because the voice you're hearing
Speaker 7: on those ads is none other than the ABC's Tony Armstrong.
Speaker 1: And why was this such a scandal? Well, host Jeanine
Speaker 1: Parrot explains.
Speaker 7: Now, there are strict rules around ABC staff doing external work,
Speaker 7: and the rules get tighter the more famous you are,
Speaker 7: with the ABC stipulating that any external work by a
Speaker 7: high profile presenter.
Speaker 1: Is very high risk.
Speaker 7: Now, Tony's arguably one of the ABC's biggest stars. He's
Speaker 7: not only on the breakfast TV couch. In recent months,
Speaker 7: he's appeared at night on a new sports show. He's
Speaker 7: one of many appearing in ABC news promos and the
Speaker 7: face of his own five part series, So come with me.
Speaker 1: On my Hunt for Our Most Extraordinary Things. Let's go.
Speaker 7: So we were stunned when we got confirmation that Tony
Speaker 7: was selling an insurance company as well.
Speaker 1: And Perrot finished the segment by concluding, how any.
Speaker 7: ABC reporter can voice a commercial for one of the
Speaker 7: biggest brands in Australia and not think that is a
Speaker 7: conflict is beyond us. If this is not a breach
Speaker 7: of the guidelines on external work, which says you must
Speaker 7: seek approval from above, we don't know what is.
Speaker 1: It isn't hard to see that a high profile a
Speaker 1: BBC program criticizing a high profile ABC host would create headlines.
Speaker 1: The news was covered by Seven News, The Australian US
Speaker 1: Here at Sky and many more mainstream outlets, but soon
Speaker 1: the ABC was hitting back because News director Justin Stevens
Speaker 1: was less concerned about whether the guidelines had been breached
Speaker 1: and more concerned about the backlash itself, and The Guardian
Speaker 1: dutifully pushed this narrative for its mates at the ABC.
Speaker 1: They wrote, ABC News director calls out racist attacks on
Speaker 1: Tony Armstrong and criticizers inflammatory mainstream media. The ABC News
Speaker 1: director Justin Stevens has called out the racist abuse Tony
Speaker 1: Armstrong has received, saying the Indigenous presenter has been targeted
Speaker 1: on social media and in the comments section of news
Speaker 1: sites in a despicable way. Ironically, the criticism of the
Speaker 1: news coverage led to attacks on the host of Media Watch,
Speaker 1: Jeannin Perrott, as well, like in this radical left wing
Speaker 1: website Pedestrian, which plastered a large photo of next to
Speaker 1: this headline. Tony Armstrong was spammed with racist abuse after
Speaker 1: his own employer, the ABC, ran a hit piece. Now,
Speaker 1: Armstrong did receive racist abuse after the Media Watch episode,
Speaker 1: and he actually took to Instagram to share specific phrases
Speaker 1: he received, and they were disgusting and honestly pretty evil stuff.
Speaker 1: Two things can be true at once, though people posting
Speaker 1: racist comments are despicable, and at the same time, Media
Speaker 1: Watch should be free to critique high profile talent, particularly
Speaker 1: when the criticism had nothing to do with his race.
Speaker 1: Is the argument from Justin Stevens really that because there
Speaker 1: are awful people out there who will comment on Armstrong's race,
Speaker 1: that he has immunity from scrutiny. Let's bring the panel
Speaker 1: back into discuss Sophie Elsworth. You've been across this story.
Speaker 1: It's one which I think it's pulled the ABC in
Speaker 1: multiple directions. The main thing is I thought Media Watch
Speaker 1: did a rather good and fair job this story, and
Speaker 1: it's actually what the program's supposed to be doing exactly
Speaker 1: right Jack.
Speaker 9: But obviously this draws intense criticism from some given that
Speaker 9: Tony Armstrong is an indigenous presenter and one of their
Speaker 9: most high profile presenters. It doesn't matter who the presenter is,
Speaker 9: their gender, their race, or whatever it may be.
Speaker 1: If they have.
Speaker 9: Commercial deals on the side, this can be a problem
Speaker 9: for the public broadcaster and the reporter, journalist, host, or
Speaker 9: whoever it may be must disclose this to the ABC,
Speaker 9: and from the report of Media Watch, mister Armstrong failed.
Speaker 1: To do so.
Speaker 9: So it's a worthy story. But as for the abuse
Speaker 9: on social media, appalling and no one would think that
Speaker 9: is acceptable. But you know, this is a problem for
Speaker 9: the ABC too because they put out that racism report
Speaker 9: earlier in the week which said they would call out
Speaker 9: racist abuse towards their journalists, so they had to act
Speaker 9: very swiftly after this report came out.
Speaker 1: Yeah, Louise, what are your thoughts?
Speaker 8: Well, I agree with Sophie. I think that racism is
Speaker 8: the number one topic it seems of the ABC at
Speaker 8: the moment. But also they clearly need to talk to
Speaker 8: their high profile presenters and really fill at them to
Speaker 8: say have you got deals or have you not got
Speaker 8: deals because we don't condone them. They're very high risk
Speaker 8: as an employment contract. Very clearly states a lot of
Speaker 8: commercial TV presenters have come unstuck with deals on the
Speaker 8: side and in a bit to sort of, you know,
Speaker 8: make some money. So the ABC clearly have not become
Speaker 8: down hard enough on their presenters to say don't do this.
Speaker 8: It's not a good look for the public broadcaster. The
Speaker 8: taxpayer will not be impressed.
Speaker 1: Yep, well said, Well, now, two stories of the week
Speaker 1: and Sophie elsewheth, Let's start with you, Jack.
Speaker 9: There's a cracking story in the Daily Telegraph spat between
Speaker 9: Media Watch host Paul Barry and investigative reporter Mark Willersy
Speaker 9: on a report that ABC Media Watch did on some
Speaker 9: of Willisy's reporting. It's a juicy story, full of entertainment.
Speaker 9: I suggest the viewers check it out.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it seems it was a bit of a bathroom
Speaker 1: confrontation between the two. I backed Paul Barry in this,
Speaker 1: so I'm not a big Mark Willersey fan, so I
Speaker 1: think my votes on Paul Barry, Louise, what have you
Speaker 1: got for us?
Speaker 8: I was intrigued by a report in the Guardian about
Speaker 8: Millennia Trump's new autobiography or memoirs that were in which
Speaker 8: she gives a very strident defense of abortion rights and
Speaker 8: the right of a woman to have agency over her
Speaker 8: own body. And I thought this was very intrigued and given,
Speaker 8: of course, her husband's stand has a very strong anti
Speaker 8: abortion theme to his presidential campaign.
Speaker 1: Louise, Robert, Sophie Elsworth, thank you so much for joining us.
Speaker 1: That's all the time that we have for tonight. Thank
Speaker 1: you for joining us. The media shall be back next
Speaker 1: Friday at the same time