Speaker 1: Vince is the Media show.
Speaker 2: Good evening, Welcome to the Media Show. I'm Caroline de
Speaker 2: Russo coming up tonight. Channel ten has announced into a
Speaker 2: replacement program following the acting of the project. Will it
Speaker 2: make the same editorial mistake again?
Speaker 3: Tucker Carlson clashes.
Speaker 2: With Senator Ted Cruz in an interview which sent tongues
Speaker 2: wagging at a B Coleman will join me from the
Speaker 2: US with the details on that story, and we check
Speaker 2: in with Norman Swan where is he now that story
Speaker 2: and more with Jarreed Henderson later in the show. Now,
Speaker 2: there are rules and then there are rules, and an
Speaker 2: ABC journalist is in more than a little hot water
Speaker 2: for allegedly coming a cropper on one of the more
Speaker 2: fundamental ones. Now Andrew Green, a journalist at the ABC
Speaker 2: for more than ten years, filed a report about how
Speaker 2: business is booming at naval shipyards in Germany. Well, that
Speaker 2: sounds pretty benign so far. But the issue is this
Speaker 2: Green apparently filed the story without disclosing that he went
Speaker 2: to Germany courtesy of Tyson Crump Marine Services. Tyson Crub's
Speaker 2: a shipbuilder looking to score navy contracts here in Australia
Speaker 2: and the ABC. Well, they are now investigating an ABC's
Speaker 2: media watch. Well, they've also taken a swing at Green
Speaker 2: over this, and noted in their show that apparently the
Speaker 2: ABC was unaware the Green had gone to Germany at all,
Speaker 2: as he filed this story when he returned from personal leave.
Speaker 2: Here's a snippet.
Speaker 4: Last week, listeners of AM's sister program, The World Today,
Speaker 4: heard Andrew Green filing another overseas report, this one from Germany.
Speaker 4: And this is how Green's report concluded. Listened closely for
Speaker 4: the disclosure.
Speaker 5: Andrew Green reporting.
Speaker 4: Not a dicky bird. And why not because no one
Speaker 4: at the abc knew Andrew Green had even gone to
Speaker 4: Germany as far as the abc knew, Green had just
Speaker 4: returned from some personal leave. In fact, act, the veteran
Speaker 4: reporter had traveled from Sydney to Dubai, to Germany and
Speaker 4: back again on a business class ticket that we estimate
Speaker 4: was worth about sixteen thousand dollars and staying in hotels
Speaker 4: in Hamburg and Keel, all of it paid for by
Speaker 4: none other than the German weapons company TKMS.
Speaker 2: That's untidy, now, Matthew Not from the Sydney Morning Herald.
Speaker 2: He went on the same press trip to Germany. Germany,
Speaker 2: but at least he had the sense to disclose in
Speaker 2: his report that he had visited Germany courtesy of Tyson
Speaker 2: Krupt Marine Services. Joining me now for more on this
Speaker 2: is Managing editor at The Australian, Darren Davidson and Saxon
Speaker 2: Davidson of the Institute of Public Affairs. Darren, assuming these
Speaker 2: allegations are accurate, how big a miss is this by Green?
Speaker 6: I think he really harms the ABC's credibility. It's really
Speaker 6: important for journalists to disclose paid trips or for meals
Speaker 6: as we call them in the business. They're very common.
Speaker 6: They're probably becoming more commonplace, I would say, based on
Speaker 6: my observations in recent years, and look, they can be
Speaker 6: a really important part of reporting and the trip itself
Speaker 6: from what I can tell you know, it looks like
Speaker 6: it was worth doing from a news perspective, but the
Speaker 6: crucial thing was to disclose that it was funded by
Speaker 6: that defense contractor. Had he done that, I don't think
Speaker 6: there would be an issue there because the story looked
Speaker 6: like it was actually worth worth doing. Defense security is
Speaker 6: a major major issue in Australia at the moment, as
Speaker 6: we know from a conference that The Australian actually held
Speaker 6: this week in camera on defense and Security and we
Speaker 6: had a keynote from Richard Miles, the Defense Minister and
Speaker 6: Acting Prime Minister, and we have sponsors for that conference,
Speaker 6: but we you know, we're very transparent about them. Look,
Speaker 6: whether it was intentional or not, and I'm not clear
Speaker 6: on whether it was a deliberate omission or just a mistake,
Speaker 6: it's not great for the ABC's credibility and they really
Speaker 6: should have clarified that and had a PostScript to the
Speaker 6: story and apologize. And it's good to look, it's good
Speaker 6: that media watched to looking at that and they flagged
Speaker 6: it as well. Whether that's something to do with the
Speaker 6: fact that he was on leave at some point during
Speaker 6: all of this, so after the triple during the trip. Again,
Speaker 6: I'm not clear on that, and those details may have
Speaker 6: something to do with it, but it is an important issue,
Speaker 6: and it's not like it was a travel trip, you know,
Speaker 6: to look at a spa or some kind of luxury resort.
Speaker 6: This this was a major, major story in terms of
Speaker 6: what's at stake here and the issues. It's a serious
Speaker 6: matter of defense and security and it should have been disclosed.
Speaker 2: Very fair observation in Saxon For those who aren't across
Speaker 2: the ethics underlying journalism, how fundamental are they and how
Speaker 2: early on would something like this be drummed into you?
Speaker 7: Oh?
Speaker 1: Very early on.
Speaker 8: I should preface this by saying that I've always thought
Speaker 8: the functions of the ABC should be privately funded, but
Speaker 8: obviously not like this. This seriously hurts the credibility of
Speaker 8: the ABC, as Darren just said. And also, ethics in
Speaker 8: journalism is there because people need to have trust in
Speaker 8: media institutions and people individually as journalists, and if those
Speaker 8: ethics are violated, as has been alleged, then the trust
Speaker 8: in you as a journalist and in the institution that
Speaker 8: you represent is broken. And also people in glasshouses shouldn't
Speaker 8: throw stones. And quite often the ABC are the first
Speaker 8: to look at other media institutions to say, well, they
Speaker 8: violated this ethic or they violated that ethic. But the
Speaker 8: ABC routinely make mistakes like this. We saw the doctored
Speaker 8: footage with the war in Afghanistan and obviously this mistake
Speaker 8: just made the ABC often do this and good on
Speaker 8: Media Watch for looking looking at the ABC, but unfortunately
Speaker 8: it's too infrequent and just honestly that people journalists just
Speaker 8: need to stay ethical and obviously that that spending on
Speaker 8: his flight should have been disclosed.
Speaker 2: Now, after sixteen years, we've finally seen the demise of
Speaker 2: Channel tens the project. Its replacement will be called ten
Speaker 2: Years Plus and will be hosted by Amelia Brace and
Speaker 2: Denham Hitchcock, and it will apparently go to the hotly
Speaker 2: contested six pm timeslot, half an hour earlier than the
Speaker 2: project's previous timeslot. Now, the show was apparently targeted to
Speaker 2: a more mature audience, but Channel ten apparently has received
Speaker 2: warnings from within the industry that it needs to steer
Speaker 2: clear of the progressive ideological bent which sank the project. Now, Darren,
Speaker 2: is this fair advice given you know the seismic change
Speaker 2: in the different demographics and how they consume their media,
Speaker 2: and how relevant is the move to the six pm
Speaker 2: time slot?
Speaker 6: I think if look they ditch identity politics and lean
Speaker 6: into substantial substantive journalism, I think the project faltered. It
Speaker 6: was an innovative format in the early years, but it
Speaker 6: just became this, as you say, identity politics, a co chamber,
Speaker 6: and I think it just that kind of progressive activist
Speaker 6: approach to its it's journalism, I think, just lost audiences
Speaker 6: and this is an opportunity to regain their trust. I
Speaker 6: also agree with some of the commentary that I'm not
Speaker 6: sure that the pivot will work. It sounds a bit
Speaker 6: like the Project two point zero to me. So let's see,
Speaker 6: and they are the third rated some notes fourth three
Speaker 6: to a linear channel, so they're going to have a
Speaker 6: really tough job winning back audiences. But it is an
Speaker 6: opportunity for them to build up that credibility and trust
Speaker 6: again with audiences. But I'd to be honest, I'd be
Speaker 6: betting against them doing that a bit with.
Speaker 2: Me, and I think you're I think you're right there.
Speaker 2: If they are third or fourth, winning back that six
Speaker 2: pm time slot is a very very difficult ask. SAT's
Speaker 2: in the project was regularly beyond the satire. Is our
Speaker 2: media market just too small to the same to sustain
Speaker 2: something as progressive left as the Project?
Speaker 3: I think it clearly is.
Speaker 8: We have some forthcoming research at the IPA looking at
Speaker 8: when Wokeness in Australia peak and that found that around
Speaker 8: six months before the Voice referendum was when Wokeness in
Speaker 8: Australia peaked. Now was obviously reflected in the falling polls
Speaker 8: for the Voice, but also the project has also been
Speaker 8: suffering from falling ratings for quite a long time.
Speaker 6: I would say almost.
Speaker 8: A decade for a show that's sixteen years old, and
Speaker 8: for ratings to be failing for ten out of those
Speaker 8: sixteen years is quite a long time to be continuing to.
Speaker 3: Just drag along.
Speaker 8: The Australian media market is also fracturing. People receive their
Speaker 8: news from various different places and when you're, as Darren said,
Speaker 8: the fourth ranked freewow Are channel at the six pm slot,
Speaker 8: and the media is fracturing, obviously your programs are going
Speaker 8: to continue to drag along and fail.
Speaker 2: Yeah, fair enough, and you low recall the social media
Speaker 2: band for children under sixteen. It was introduced last year
Speaker 2: by the Albanese government. It had bipartisan political support, but
Speaker 2: look to be fair, it was pretty polarizing with the
Speaker 2: the community.
Speaker 7: Now.
Speaker 2: Software trials commenced in January to find the most effective
Speaker 2: way of verifying age and the results were released this morning.
Speaker 2: Still with you, Saxon, what were the findings and will
Speaker 2: kids just be able to find a work around?
Speaker 8: Well, there are various different software is being made available.
Speaker 8: Most prominently the face recognition, with some software finding within
Speaker 8: eighteen months, whereas frequently some teenagers have been found to be.
Speaker 8: The software as finding teenagers to allegedly been in their
Speaker 8: twenties or thirties. I'm a huge skeptic of this technology
Speaker 8: simply because there's a lot of variance in teenagers in
Speaker 8: a period of puberty. And also there will obviously workarounds
Speaker 8: because people will just be using their siblings or their
Speaker 8: parents or their older friends to access social media. And
Speaker 8: ultimately I think that this social media ban is a
Speaker 8: trojan horse for digital id laws and ultimate censorship of
Speaker 8: the Internet doing that. This ban was brought in in
Speaker 8: the aftermath of the misinformation debate, which the government lost.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but they're still trying, aren't they. They are still trying,
Speaker 2: and I don't think we've seen the end of that. Similarly,
Speaker 2: there was a great report in the AFR this week
Speaker 2: about a person's news habits and what it says about
Speaker 2: who they are and their age.
Speaker 5: Darren.
Speaker 2: From a media business perspective, how important is it to
Speaker 2: be agile and across a changing taste.
Speaker 3: It's very difficult.
Speaker 6: You've you've got you've got to be tech savvy, agile
Speaker 6: and then at the same time retaining you know, have
Speaker 6: a very tight editorial product in terms of your delivery,
Speaker 6: and at the same time retain your existing audience and
Speaker 6: entice new readers or new subscribers or new listeners or
Speaker 6: new viewers. It's it's really really tricky, and at the
Speaker 6: same time, you're you're grappling with the huge upheaval and
Speaker 6: accelerated digital change in the media market. You know, we
Speaker 6: were grappling with the emergency the platforms Facebook, Amazon, TikTok
Speaker 6: and Google and have been for many years. And now
Speaker 6: we've got the GENI, which is both a huge opportunity
Speaker 6: for media businesses but also a bit of a threat
Speaker 6: at the same time. And it's just you know, another
Speaker 6: kind of similar point adjacent to what we've just been
Speaker 6: discussing around the social media ban is that, you know,
Speaker 6: that's very well intentioned and we support greate scrutiny of
Speaker 6: social media and particularly if it's harmful to children, but
Speaker 6: the enforcement of that actually risks harming traditional media businesses
Speaker 6: because teenagers are more tech savvy than the regulators. They're
Speaker 6: one step ahead of them. The age veriorification. Verification technology
Speaker 6: clearly isn't perfect, and that doesn't work and can't enforce
Speaker 6: these new standards. But what it does do is it
Speaker 6: stops the ad targeting technology that media businesses rely on
Speaker 6: to grow their pool of ad revenue from digital advertising.
Speaker 6: So it just purports actually harms the traditional media businesses
Speaker 6: and doesn't actually achieve the aim that it set out
Speaker 6: to achieve in terms of harmful effects on children. So
Speaker 6: it's really really tricky.
Speaker 2: Yeah, excellent observation, Darren Davis and Saxon Davidson. Thank you
Speaker 2: so much both for your time. Now after the break
Speaker 2: will be Goldberg compares the oppression of women in the
Speaker 2: Run to black people in the US. More on that shortly.
Speaker 2: Welcome back to Stars and Gripes, where we tear apart
Speaker 2: the actions of the better activists masquerading as journalists in
Speaker 2: the United States.
Speaker 7: Now.
Speaker 2: Tucker Carlson has been part of the US media landscape
Speaker 2: for a long time, and I mean a long time.
Speaker 2: Check out a babyface Carlson on cea Span back in
Speaker 2: the day.
Speaker 9: Tucker Carlson as a staff writer for The Weekly Standard.
Speaker 6: Good morning, thanks for being with us.
Speaker 3: I don't know about this guy with the boat. I
Speaker 3: think you should pick on somebody it's on site, but
Speaker 3: I don't know what it would be. And this little
Speaker 3: Angland it's smile and he is pressure. But when he's
Speaker 3: on other programs and does not call.
Speaker 7: In ooh, is he ever bad about talking about a Democrat?
Speaker 2: And he's always been polarizing, but even more so since
Speaker 2: leaving the mainstream media. This week he interviewed Republican Senator
Speaker 2: Ted Cruz about the Israeli rank conflict. Now, he might
Speaker 2: be polarizing, but he knows how to ask the right
Speaker 2: questions of his guessed.
Speaker 3: How many people living around? By the way, I don't
Speaker 3: know the population at all. No, I don't know the population.
Speaker 3: You don't know the population of the country. You seek
Speaker 3: to topple how many people living around? Ninety two million? Okay? Yeah,
Speaker 3: how could you not know that? I don't sit around
Speaker 3: memorizing population tables.
Speaker 5: Well, it's kind of relevant because you're calling for the
Speaker 5: overthrow of the government.
Speaker 3: Why is it relevant whether it will because ninety million
Speaker 3: or eighty million or a hundred million? Why because if
Speaker 3: you don't know anything about the country, I didn't say
Speaker 3: I don't know anything about Okay, what's the ethnic mix
Speaker 3: of wrong? They are Persians and were predominantly Shia. Okay,
Speaker 3: so you don't know anything about Iran.
Speaker 2: And here's a little bit more.
Speaker 3: By the way, Tucker, it's a very weird thing, the
Speaker 3: obsession with Israel. Well, we're talking about foreign country. You're
Speaker 3: not talking about Chinese, you're not talking about Japanese, and
Speaker 3: we're not talking about the Brits, you're not talking about
Speaker 3: the French. The question what about the Jews? What about
Speaker 3: the Jews?
Speaker 10: Tell you Sam might now, Senator, you're just in the question, Tucker,
Speaker 10: You're asking why are the Jews controlling our foreign policy?
Speaker 10: That's what you just asked, hardly saying that, and I
Speaker 10: have that's exactly what.
Speaker 3: You just said.
Speaker 2: Boy, did this interview hit the headlines? CBS News Tucker
Speaker 2: Carlson spars with Ted Cruz on Israel Iran strikes, you
Speaker 2: don't know anything about Iran. Similarly, NBC News Tucker Carlson
Speaker 2: clashes with Ten Cruz, you don't know anything about Iran.
Speaker 2: And in USA Today, Tucker Carlson grills Ted Cruise on Iran,
Speaker 2: highlighting conservative rift. Joining me now for more on this
Speaker 2: is wrong Speak. Publishing founder and author of the new
Speaker 2: book The Children We Left Behind, Adam B. Coleman Adam
Speaker 2: Tucker has some pretty unorthodox views, but he understands the
Speaker 2: fundamentals of journalism. He knows how to test his guests
Speaker 2: on their knowledge of the subject matter. How fair is
Speaker 2: that as an observation, If.
Speaker 1: I'm completely honest, I wasn't a fan of this interview,
Speaker 1: or at least the clips that have come out of
Speaker 1: it so far. And the moment where he asked them
Speaker 1: the population numbers he didn't know. But when he asked him, well,
Speaker 1: what's the ethnic makeup at cruise, was attempting to answer
Speaker 1: the question and briefly cut him off and attempted to say, well,
Speaker 1: did say that he knows nothing about it? Around meanwhile,
Speaker 1: he was actually giving me an answer. I think if
Speaker 1: this was Donald Trump and it was NBC News interviewing
Speaker 1: Donald Trump in the same fashion, who say this is
Speaker 1: not real journalism, this is antagonism, This is a gotcha
Speaker 1: moment that they're trying to pull. And throughout all the
Speaker 1: different clips that have come out, what I see from
Speaker 1: Tucker Carlson is not being inquisitive. What he's doing is
Speaker 1: a c and using bad faith tactics.
Speaker 2: In my opinion, Now, the Israel around conflict it has
Speaker 2: caused a rift amongst conservatives in the US. What do
Speaker 2: you think to the extent, do you think that Tucker
Speaker 2: is representative of that rift within mainstream conservatives or do
Speaker 2: you think he's just moved to the fringe.
Speaker 1: I think there are varying viewpoints because the Republican Party
Speaker 1: is a mixture of what I would call traditional conservatives.
Speaker 1: You could also say disaffected liberals in general, anti war
Speaker 1: people who are part of the bank of movements, since
Speaker 1: it's much more of the populist movement. So there are
Speaker 1: different factions who support either going towards war with Iran
Speaker 1: or away from war with Iran for various reasons. So
Speaker 1: it's not to say that Tucker is fringe. Tucker just
Speaker 1: represents one of many viewpoints that exists amongst the Republican Party.
Speaker 1: Would necessarily say that this is a purely conservative situation.
Speaker 1: This is what you have. This is the type of
Speaker 1: situation you deal with in a populous movement.
Speaker 2: Yeah, fair enough. Now, it was only two years ago
Speaker 2: that news Max was caughting Carlson to join their channel.
Speaker 2: They've since gone cold on the idea. They've recently described
Speaker 2: him as being irrelevant. What in your view is the
Speaker 2: reason for this quite a significant It appears about face.
Speaker 1: Well, I guess it could be Tucker's view choice, I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: Tucker's choice of having certain guests on. In my opinion,
Speaker 1: it could have been his interview with Vladimir Putin, which
Speaker 1: was very cordial, far more cordial than how he treated
Speaker 1: Ted Cruz. So you know, it could be some very
Speaker 1: conspicuous interviews, certain viewpoints that he's more free to espouse
Speaker 1: now that he's not under the shackles of Fox News.
Speaker 1: So I think there are various reasons why people are
Speaker 1: feeling more hands off of them now.
Speaker 2: Of course, when it comes to bad takes in the
Speaker 2: media on the Middle East, nothing quite compares to the view.
Speaker 10: But your twenty twenty five the United States is nothing
Speaker 10: like if I step foot wearing this.
Speaker 2: Younger, I'm sorry.
Speaker 11: I mean, I can't have my hair showing.
Speaker 9: I can't wear a skirt, I can't have my think
Speaker 9: it's very different to live in the United States in
Speaker 9: twenty twenty five than it is to live in an
Speaker 9: You're black, not for everybody, not.
Speaker 3: Every black guys don't go to Koran.
Speaker 7: And you know, let me tell you about being in
Speaker 7: this country. This is the greatest country in the world.
Speaker 3: But yeah, I know that.
Speaker 7: I know that, and we all know that. But every
Speaker 7: day we are worried. Do we have to be worried
Speaker 7: about our kids? Are their kids going to get shot
Speaker 7: because they're running through somebody's neighbor.
Speaker 2: Adam, No matter the subject matter, Whoopi Goldberg invariably tries
Speaker 2: to jam everything through her very narrow worldview. But this
Speaker 2: is a bit ridiculous, isn't it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, extremely ridiculous. I personally know people who are Christians
Speaker 1: who left Iran decades ago for being persecuted as Christians.
Speaker 1: So this idea that the United States is on par
Speaker 1: with the Iran, Well, if she actually feels that way,
Speaker 1: she's a multimillionaire. Why she's still here. You know, there
Speaker 1: are people who have nothing from across the world who
Speaker 1: take their last dollar to come to the United States
Speaker 1: to flee persecution. That this multimillionaire has a lot of
Speaker 1: complaints about this country, about its inherent nature, Well why stay?
Speaker 1: There must be something about Oh wait, it's also the
Speaker 1: greatest country in the world. So she has to wrestle
Speaker 1: with both things. Is it the greatest country in the world?
Speaker 1: And that yes, every country has its problems or is
Speaker 1: it on par with the Iran So it's not the
Speaker 1: greatest country in the world, So which one is it?
Speaker 12: So?
Speaker 1: I think this is much of herbbloviating from her geta community.
Speaker 2: A very conflicted position.
Speaker 3: Indeed.
Speaker 2: Now, last week, the Trump administration held a military possession
Speaker 2: to celebrate the two hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the
Speaker 2: US Army.
Speaker 3: Now, there was.
Speaker 2: Plenty of commentary and criticism around this event, and it
Speaker 2: sparked a No King's protest. Take a look. Now, No,
Speaker 2: obviously this was reported by media outlets as you would expect,
Speaker 2: but CBS News however, took the awkward step of appearing
Speaker 2: to promote the sale of No King's merchandise. It did
Speaker 2: cause quite a bit of backlash online. Did they go
Speaker 2: a step too far?
Speaker 12: Yeah?
Speaker 1: Absolutely? Where's the journalistic integrity? Where is being impartial? And listen,
Speaker 1: I'm off for out the that are not partial. You know,
Speaker 1: that are not impartial, that have a bias. I'm all
Speaker 1: for that, but just don't pretend to be otherwise. If
Speaker 1: they want to be a left wing outlet, come out
Speaker 1: and say we're a left wing outlet, but don't lie
Speaker 1: to us and claim otherwise. So you know, this whole
Speaker 1: no King's thing is absolutely absurd, and it doesn't surprise
Speaker 1: me that this network has gotten behind it. Everyone has
Speaker 1: become highly irrational about something that ultimately is what any
Speaker 1: other country would do celebrate its military. We have moments
Speaker 1: throughout this country, like Memorial Day, where we celebrate our
Speaker 1: military for a particular reason. These are people who sacrifice
Speaker 1: their lives. These are people who do the things that
Speaker 1: many of us aren't brave enough to do ourselves, including myself.
Speaker 1: So this idea that Trump is a king for highlighting
Speaker 1: the greatness of our military is absolutely absurd.
Speaker 2: Now post the BLM rights and I thought nothing could
Speaker 2: so prize me anymore. But here are some of the
Speaker 2: media low lights when it comes to how the US
Speaker 2: media reported on the recent LA riots.
Speaker 11: The scene here has been pretty pretty quiet, almost festival
Speaker 11: like for the last hour or so. We just heard
Speaker 11: a flash bang, we just heard another one, But in
Speaker 11: general last night was pretty nonviolent standoff here.
Speaker 9: There's a large group of people. It could turn very
Speaker 9: volatile if you move law enforcement in there in the
Speaker 9: wrong way and turn what is just a bunch of
Speaker 9: people having fun watching cars burn into a massive confrontation.
Speaker 12: There is no vicious and violent mob in Los Angeles.
Speaker 12: The National Guard troops are doing absolutely nothing, The Marines
Speaker 12: are invisible and obviously doing absolutely nothing, and peaceful protesters
Speaker 12: have been peacefully submitting to.
Speaker 2: Arrests Adam having fun watching cars burning. Has the media
Speaker 2: just been consistently bad or have they reached a new low?
Speaker 1: It's a good question. I don't know if you can
Speaker 1: go lower than twenty twenty tactics. They've been consistently bad,
Speaker 1: to say the least. You know, the new American pastime
Speaker 1: I thought was something else other than watching cars burn.
Speaker 1: And if the military is doing nothing, why were they
Speaker 1: freaking out that Trump was in in the military. If
Speaker 1: the military does nothing, then what's the harm of them
Speaker 1: doing nothing?
Speaker 5: You know?
Speaker 1: So this entire translation as to what's happening in Los
Speaker 1: Angeles is much like George Orwell where he's saying, don't
Speaker 1: believe you're lying eyes right. What we're seeing is, yes,
Speaker 1: obviously cars are on fire, but it's not the entire
Speaker 1: city that's on fire. But it's bad enough that the
Speaker 1: car is on fire. If your kitchen was on fire,
Speaker 1: would you just say, well, it's just the kitchen that's
Speaker 1: on fire, or would you be very concerned that the
Speaker 1: rest of your house is going to burn down too?
Speaker 1: So this is much of a manipulation in lying to
Speaker 1: the American public about what they're actually seeing for themselves
Speaker 1: and doing it live on television, and they wonder why
Speaker 1: the American public does not trust them.
Speaker 2: Now, recently, a journalist, Terry Moran was fired from the
Speaker 2: ABC for launching a scathing attack on Donald Trump and
Speaker 2: he's chief of staff Steve Miller. He's since said that
Speaker 2: he stands by his comments. What's the story here, what's
Speaker 2: the update here?
Speaker 1: Well, essentially the story is, you know the ABC News
Speaker 1: wants to appear impartial, and you know they have a
Speaker 1: lot of anchors and journalists who have a hard time
Speaker 1: not showing their biases. So yeah, he's fired. So now
Speaker 1: he feels free to say that he doesn't feel bad
Speaker 1: for what he's actually had to say. And of course
Speaker 1: he can get the resistance left, the blue and non
Speaker 1: conspiracy theorists and all these other people to get behind
Speaker 1: him and support him. I believe he even a sub stack.
Speaker 1: So now he found another way to capitalize off of
Speaker 1: him getting fired, just like other journalists have. So I
Speaker 1: think that's essentially what's going to happen to him. He's
Speaker 1: going to go and try to be independent, so to speak,
Speaker 1: but he's going to feel free to be more open
Speaker 1: about how he actually feels.
Speaker 2: Well, we can expect some of that language to dial
Speaker 2: up then. I expect now, lastly, a report out this
Speaker 2: week about how Americans get their news. In this report,
Speaker 2: what piqued your interests? What was the highlight here?
Speaker 1: Well, I think the main thing is that social media
Speaker 1: is far more important than traditional television, and none of
Speaker 1: that shocks me. Whatsoever you have. The mainstream media has
Speaker 1: lost credibility over the years. Their main demographic is basically boomers,
Speaker 1: and any sort of product that relies off of aging
Speaker 1: population is a product that's doomed to fail at some point,
Speaker 1: whereas social media has a much more youth oriented interest
Speaker 1: a wide range of American public interests. As far as
Speaker 1: consuming the information there, I will say that because of
Speaker 1: social media, there's a lot of information that is out there.
Speaker 1: It's hard to decipher what is true and what is
Speaker 1: not because there are things that are legitimately fake and
Speaker 1: there are things that are bias. So it's it is
Speaker 1: harder to understand the information that is coming across. But
Speaker 1: we're in this environment because the old Guard let the
Speaker 1: American public down. They chose to chase clicks, they chose
Speaker 1: to chase outrage and deceive the American public, and they're
Speaker 1: doing it to their own demise.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that is an excellent observation. Adam Bay Coleman, thank
Speaker 2: you for your time. After the break, ABC Radio National
Speaker 2: is all talk about diversity of voices, prising.
Speaker 3: Welcome back.
Speaker 2: Joining the show as he does each and every week,
Speaker 2: is Guy News. Australia Media watchdog columnist Jared Henderson. Jared,
Speaker 2: there's now a lack of evening current affairs shows on
Speaker 2: the ABC following the demise of Late Line, the drama
Speaker 2: now Q and A This and Network tends. Decision to
Speaker 2: dump the project was discussed on Insiders last Sunday, but
Speaker 2: they forgot to mention a key point.
Speaker 13: I just wanted to also point out it's been a
Speaker 13: tough week for many in the industry with the news
Speaker 13: that the project your show will aid and Q and
Speaker 13: A coming to an end. Having occasionally appeared on the
Speaker 13: project and occasionally hosted Q and A, disappointing to hear
Speaker 13: this news. And Greg, you wrote a wonderful lament for
Speaker 13: Q and A during the week as well. I think
Speaker 13: discussion programs about news and current affairs are always important.
Speaker 13: So thoughts with.
Speaker 2: All of those in Jared what was missing from the
Speaker 2: analysis or.
Speaker 14: What's missing any explanation? I mean, why did these programs fail?
Speaker 14: Why is it that after block of a night the
Speaker 14: ABC cannot run a current affairs program I like the
Speaker 14: BBC in Britain can And the reason is because essentially
Speaker 14: they were left wing dominated programs which were devoid of
Speaker 14: viewpoint diversity. Now, Greg Sheridan said he'd been on it
Speaker 14: many times, I think over twenty times, but he was
Speaker 14: the kind of the token conservative you'd drag on the
Speaker 14: program and he enjoyed that. But for the most part,
Speaker 14: if you had a panel of five, four of them
Speaker 14: are on the left, usually plus the presenter, and plus
Speaker 14: a rather left wing audience. So after a while it
Speaker 14: became very boring. So what's missing that the ABC is
Speaker 14: viewpoint diversity and no one recognizes that. So even when
Speaker 14: that program's wound up, and the Project as well, which
Speaker 14: was also dominated by the left, when these programs are
Speaker 14: wound up, it's like that they suddenly died or something.
Speaker 14: But they didn't suddenly die. They had a sudden death
Speaker 14: because they became boring because there was no program diversity,
Speaker 14: and they were dominated by left wing thought and they
Speaker 14: had left wing viewers, but they lost all their conservative
Speaker 14: viewers and others who wanted something interesting.
Speaker 2: Well, I think they died a slow death and then
Speaker 2: a very sudden death. Or Yes, the diversity of views
Speaker 2: is that there is not an issue just for those
Speaker 2: particular shows. And we've discussed this on the program before.
Speaker 2: When Nick Bryant commenced as a presenter of ABC Radio
Speaker 2: National Saturday Extra, he promised a diversity of voices. Let's
Speaker 2: have a look how that's going.
Speaker 5: He has not invoked the Insurrection Act, so I'm not
Speaker 5: clear what legal authority he has to send marines to
Speaker 5: into Los Angeles. He is always threatening to invoke the
Speaker 5: Insurrection Act. If he does threaten to invoke the Insurrection Act,
Speaker 5: then we have a kind of hit Nazi enabling Act
Speaker 5: kind of moment where after the life stugfire. That's what
Speaker 5: we authoritarianism scholars have always been looking for. That, you know,
Speaker 5: declared emergency that will allow sort of military power, the
Speaker 5: president to take military powers.
Speaker 14: Your reaction to that, well, I mean, that's absolute Tosh.
Speaker 14: You've got an Nick Bryant didn't query it. He You've
Speaker 14: got a Yale professor who should know better, comparing the
Speaker 14: possibility that President Trump may enact an Insurrection Act with
Speaker 14: the Enabling Acts, which were implemented by the Nazi Nazis
Speaker 14: in Germany after the Reichstark Fire which they started and
Speaker 14: then blame the Left for it. And the Enabling Act
Speaker 14: was the one act coming in in nineteen thirty three
Speaker 14: after the fire that made possible all the other Nazi
Speaker 14: atrocities Nazi German acrossities in Germany and elsewhere, made them
Speaker 14: legal under the legal system. So this is what this
Speaker 14: professor from Yale is saying, without correction from Nick Bryant,
Speaker 14: who also should know better, is that Trump is just
Speaker 14: like Hitler was. Trump in twenty twenty five is just
Speaker 14: about like Hitler was in nineteen thirty three, and that
Speaker 14: is that is an appalling thing to say. It doesn't
Speaker 14: do any justice whatsoever to the victims of Nazi Germany,
Speaker 14: but it's also a distortion, and young people in particular
Speaker 14: listening in to that may think there's a comparison because
Speaker 14: he has a learned Our professor and he's not corrected
Speaker 14: by a learned British Australian journalists like mcbrian, And he
Speaker 14: should have been corrected because it is just completely wrong
Speaker 14: and it gives a false impression not only of current
Speaker 14: in the United States, but also of historical Germany through
Speaker 14: the thirties into the early forties.
Speaker 2: But Jared, I mean, you get two lawyers in a room,
Speaker 2: you have three different opinions, right, So it's very well
Speaker 2: that professor may have had his view, but there's absolutely
Speaker 2: no reason if you're going to have diversity of views
Speaker 2: to at least have someone on there who might have
Speaker 2: a more measured view of these sorts of things.
Speaker 3: Well, that's a good point.
Speaker 14: I mean, I don't have any objection to anyone appearing
Speaker 14: on the ABC pretty well, I mean I don't object
Speaker 14: to that, but when their views are not challenged. Now,
Speaker 14: if you want to have an interesting discussion, you get
Speaker 14: in and there are plenty of people in Australia. You
Speaker 14: don't need to go to our university to pick one up.
Speaker 14: You get some who knows something about European history in
Speaker 14: the first half of the twentieth century, which Nick Bryan should,
Speaker 14: and then you have a discussion as to whether whether
Speaker 14: what Trump is doing in the United States is in
Speaker 14: any way comparable to what Hitler did in Germany in
Speaker 14: nineteen thirty three. In my view, the answer is no.
Speaker 14: I'm happy. I would be happy to argue that with
Speaker 14: Professor Stanley, but no one argued it with him. It
Speaker 14: was like he was laying down the truth, and he
Speaker 14: wasn't laying down the truth. He was laying down a
Speaker 14: historical myth and it ought to be in challenge. And
Speaker 14: if you had viewpoint diversity in the studio, you'd have
Speaker 14: an argument. But that's gone by and large now. And
Speaker 14: as part of his promises early on, as you mentioned, Nick,
Speaker 14: Bryan's pretty well gone back to getting a whole range
Speaker 14: of left wing commentators on like it was before he
Speaker 14: took over earlier this year.
Speaker 2: Now, let's listen to this interview from ABC Radio National Breakfast.
Speaker 2: Here is Sally Sara. She's discussing the bombing of Iranian
Speaker 2: state media studios. We CNN's Christina Munpaul.
Speaker 15: It's been a deadly twelve months for journalists. Scores of
Speaker 15: journalists have been killed in Gaza, and we also saw
Speaker 15: that Iranian state television came under attack how do you
Speaker 15: reflect on this time for your profession and how do
Speaker 15: you see that attack in Iran?
Speaker 3: Well, that's correct.
Speaker 14: Generally these are civilian targets, whether it's state or not.
Speaker 15: Many authoritarian regimes have increasingly tried to kill the messenger.
Speaker 2: Jared a quick answer from you, because I still got
Speaker 2: one topic I want to get to, but it seems
Speaker 2: like they've left out some crucial context here.
Speaker 14: Well, Israeli's got the free as media in the Middle East,
Speaker 14: one of the three is medias in the world. And secondly,
Speaker 14: the target that was bombed, the Iranian radio television station,
Speaker 14: is simply an arm of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. It's
Speaker 14: an agent of the Uranian theocracy. It's not something that
Speaker 14: Israel's hitting because it doesn't want to hear the opinions.
Speaker 14: We know the opinions that comes out of there. So
Speaker 14: again it's just a distortion. It ought to be corrected.
Speaker 14: She's entitled to be on interview in Australian televisions. He's
Speaker 14: an interesting present, but she ought to be contested.
Speaker 15: Fair enough.
Speaker 2: And just finally, I'm sure we all remember Norman Swan.
Speaker 2: He was once hard is Australia's most trusted doctor. He's
Speaker 2: now been reduced to this.
Speaker 4: So you know, long times since I've practiced, there was
Speaker 4: no such thing as telehealth and those ancient days in
Speaker 4: the day.
Speaker 14: Jared bite the downgrade well on these various books. He
Speaker 14: was presented as and at the ABC as a Australia's
Speaker 14: most trusted doctor. But when I started criticizing that at
Speaker 14: my media watchdog, it came down to one of Australia's
Speaker 14: most practiced doctors, most trusted doctors, but in fact he
Speaker 14: hasn't practiced for about four decades now. He's knowledgeable about medicine,
Speaker 14: but he's not a practicing doctor. And he suddenly, he
Speaker 14: finally said it on ABC Radio last Saturday. So I
Speaker 14: noticed it and I thought, ah, he hasn't practiced for
Speaker 14: a long time. He hasn't practiced for a long time,
Speaker 14: so he's not a practicing doctor. And finally, finally we
Speaker 14: found out from the man himself, the ABC's doctor in
Speaker 14: the House.
Speaker 2: Jared Anderson, thank you so much for joining us tonight,
Speaker 2: and that's all we have time for this evening. Up
Speaker 2: next is Newsnight