Speaker 1: Vice is the Media Show, with.
Speaker 2: Jack outing Hello and welcome to the Media Show. There's
Speaker 2: a lot to discuss tonight, including deepening chaos in America
Speaker 2: and the end of two major Australian TV shows, and
Speaker 2: of course, the media's role in encouraging a young activist
Speaker 2: to try and enter a war zone. But first La
Speaker 2: burns yet again, and Australian TV crews have rushed to
Speaker 2: the action to let us know what's really going on.
Speaker 3: It's not like when Warrior and it's just road testing.
Speaker 4: The trigger for the president protest is spitting on police.
Speaker 3: They sped, We hit, They hit all right and hard.
Speaker 4: Up Here we go, There we go. Pepper spray, pepper spray.
Speaker 4: We're moving backwards, guys, We're moving backwards. Pepper spray. They
Speaker 4: mean business, these guys. The pepper spray, the tear gas
Speaker 4: is in the air. It just gets to the back
Speaker 4: of your throat, straight up into your nose.
Speaker 2: Yes, that's typically how pepper spray works, But one reporter
Speaker 2: ended up becoming the story herself after one police officer
Speaker 2: fight a rubber bullet into her leg.
Speaker 5: Rubber bullets of protesters moving them on through the heart
Speaker 5: of LA.
Speaker 2: And a short while later Nines, Karl Stefanovic was doing
Speaker 2: a frame by frame breakdown of what went wrong.
Speaker 6: So if you slow the footage down, you can see
Speaker 6: the officer aim his weapon, pulling the trigger while Lauren
Speaker 6: had her back to him. She has her back to him,
Speaker 6: she has a microphone and is standing in front of
Speaker 6: a camera. We don't know what was near her, We
Speaker 6: don't know what threat was so imminent it required a
Speaker 6: cop to discharge his weapon on a reporter or whether
Speaker 6: he meant to shoot her, But it sure looks.
Speaker 3: Like that to me, and Carl is correct.
Speaker 2: It is hard to know what was going on behind
Speaker 2: find the reporter or out of the shot. But the
Speaker 2: officer did snap his weapon around and point it straight
Speaker 2: at her before firing.
Speaker 3: Did he know she was media?
Speaker 2: Impossible to say, that is unless, of course, you are
Speaker 2: our prime minister.
Speaker 3: He said targeted?
Speaker 4: Was that how it was raised by the Strange government
Speaker 4: that she was seemingly targeted by police?
Speaker 7: She was clearly identified, was clearly identified. You know, there
Speaker 7: was no ambiguity. She wasn't wearing a trackie, She's wearing
Speaker 7: a helmet and something I identified her as media and.
Speaker 8: It is not acceptable.
Speaker 2: So Albanezi is turning this into a diplomatic incident, and
Speaker 2: he doesn't even seem to have his facts right. The
Speaker 2: reporter wasn't wearing a helmet, a crucial, crucial piece of
Speaker 2: information that two GiB has been fulleda and seized on.
Speaker 9: I'm not sure what footage the PM was watching because
Speaker 9: Lauren didn't have any media signage that I could see,
Speaker 9: and she certainly wasn't wearing a helmet. What helmet was
Speaker 9: he talking about? The PM says she was clearly identified
Speaker 9: as media, she was wearing a helmet and something that
Speaker 9: identified her as media. Well, he's got himself very confused
Speaker 9: on that front because the footage does not support the
Speaker 9: PM's comments.
Speaker 3: Well.
Speaker 2: Joining me to discuss is Sky News contributor James Bold
Speaker 2: and Managing editor at The Australian Darren Davidson. James, let's
Speaker 2: start with you, let's bring you in. I don't know
Speaker 2: what happened in this situation. I don't know if the
Speaker 2: police officer knew that this woman was a journalist and
Speaker 2: then took a shot, or it was a mistake and
Speaker 2: they were aiming at something that was offscreen. But for
Speaker 2: the Prime Minister to potentially be well, he has already,
Speaker 2: he said, he raised it already directly with America. But
Speaker 2: we know he's going to be in proximity of Donald Trump.
Speaker 2: To not have these basic facts right and to talk
Speaker 2: with such certainty is a little bit worrying for me.
Speaker 10: Yeah, I think, first off, like, yes, she's not a helmet,
Speaker 10: but you're standing in front of a camera's have a
Speaker 10: microphone in the backs to where there's other cameras. There
Speaker 10: are some bad looking people around her at the time.
Speaker 10: But I don't think like that's clearly a meltdown. But
Speaker 10: as you say, for Albanesi to raise it with US
Speaker 10: officials as if the meltdown of that officer is officially
Speaker 10: sanctioned by the US government as something that they wanted
Speaker 10: to see happen. I look forward to him bringing that
Speaker 10: energy next time the Chinese warships get a little too
Speaker 10: close to our maybe someone gets hurt. Maybe he might
Speaker 10: bring that up with someone involved with China. Who's to
Speaker 10: say this is the new way that he wants to
Speaker 10: do foreign relations. But yeah, to your point, I mean,
Speaker 10: between this sanctioning Israeli ministers, Tariff's defense spending, this G
Speaker 10: seven meeting is going to be a bliedbath.
Speaker 3: For ALBERENESI definitely.
Speaker 2: I mean, just had he not watched the footage, I
Speaker 2: mean to say that with such certainty is really really strange. Now, Darren,
Speaker 2: let's bring you in here. What do you make of
Speaker 2: this whole situation.
Speaker 5: I don't think you can really tell from one single
Speaker 5: angle what that police officer was looking at. We know
Speaker 5: that she's roughly in his eye line, but you really
Speaker 5: need other angles to have a full picture of what
Speaker 5: he's looking at in that moment. I find it hard
Speaker 5: to believe I could be wrong that he directed his
Speaker 5: gun with that rubber bullet at the journalist. I'm glad
Speaker 5: Lawren's okay, she's on her and she's returned to work.
Speaker 5: But I just I'm just a bit skeptical about whether
Speaker 5: it was his intention to actually strike her with that
Speaker 5: rubber bullet with intent. I find that hard to believe.
Speaker 5: I think one of the other things that's kind of
Speaker 5: struck me about the coverage more generally is just this
Speaker 5: constant comparison to the nineteen ninety two LA riots, where
Speaker 5: you know, there was real violence and there was lots
Speaker 5: of life, and there was kind of deep upheaval and
Speaker 5: carnage in communities these riots are very, very different. That's
Speaker 5: the thing that's really struck me about the coverage, the
Speaker 5: media coverage of what's happening at the moment on the
Speaker 5: West Coast. Just these kind of really shallow, kind of
Speaker 5: flawed comparisons to what happened in nineteen ninety two. I
Speaker 5: don't think that's quite right.
Speaker 3: Yeah, no, I agree.
Speaker 2: Moving on now, two major shows have been canned, including
Speaker 2: Channel ten's The Project.
Speaker 4: Great to have you here.
Speaker 6: We begin tonight, of course, sorry, we begin tonight.
Speaker 3: With some big news. Fantastic. I think I got the
Speaker 3: tone wrong. Oh it's not all right? Okay, Well, what
Speaker 3: am I going to do with this? Onet me nineteen dollars?
Speaker 3: You really missed that meeting.
Speaker 8: That was a shame.
Speaker 6: No, we are here to announce you're right there, I'm
Speaker 6: all right.
Speaker 3: Typical Project style. I should take us off air after.
Speaker 6: After sixteen years and what nearly four and a half
Speaker 6: thousand episodes, the Project will very soon be no more.
Speaker 2: And of course, this news came shortly after it was
Speaker 2: revealed that the ABC would acts its weekly panel show
Speaker 2: Q and A. James want to bring you back in.
Speaker 2: Let's start with the Project. That show really symbolizes the
Speaker 2: biggest sin that you can commit. I think in television
Speaker 2: it's just don't be boring. And it became this very sanitized,
Speaker 2: safe product where people would stand up and say things like,
Speaker 2: you know, I stand against crime and I'm not afraid to,
Speaker 2: you know, to make that very controversial stand.
Speaker 10: Yeah, it is something you say a lot.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, every time.
Speaker 10: I'm blown away by the bravery of you. But yeah,
Speaker 10: it's just like it's that in the sense. I mean
Speaker 10: there weren't good journalists on there. I mean, you know,
Speaker 10: Steve Rice's a colleague of ours, he's doing great work,
Speaker 10: and there's some other people in there that are great.
Speaker 10: But I think the other side to me is if
Speaker 10: you pitch the project today, there's no chance that it
Speaker 10: would be greenlit.
Speaker 3: It's kind of.
Speaker 10: Out there because it was kind of out there because
Speaker 10: it was just there already and it was too hard
Speaker 10: to change. But like a one hour aimed at the
Speaker 10: under thirty five market, six thirty news and pop culture,
Speaker 10: like I just I don't see on a free to
Speaker 10: wear TV, which no one in that age demographic is
Speaker 10: watching anymore. Like, if you can't pitch it again today,
Speaker 10: why would you have it?
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's a good point, Darren. Do you agree with that? Yeah,
Speaker 3: I do.
Speaker 5: What began, as you know, quite innovative formats became not
Speaker 5: only boring, and they've been boring for some time. Those
Speaker 5: two shows, they became kind of echo chambers that were
Speaker 5: less about inquiry and more about affirmation. So I think
Speaker 5: audiences can just kind of tell that they're stacked and
Speaker 5: they're about advocacy, not having a genuine kind of contest
Speaker 5: of ideas, and I think that and I think the
Speaker 5: key word here is trust. So they kind of just
Speaker 5: lost the trust of their audiences. They became boring, and
Speaker 5: the audience has turned off. And we've seen the same
Speaker 5: on some of the public broadcasts in other markets as well.
Speaker 5: The BBC in the UK has a similar format, and
Speaker 5: you know that's had very, very sharply declining ratings as well,
Speaker 5: and I think for similar reasons. When they just stacked
Speaker 5: these panels with activists and they become about advocacy, audiences
Speaker 5: just tune out, I think, And that's what we've had
Speaker 5: here with both of these formats, And as you say,
Speaker 5: they're not interesting, they're not engaging, and they're ultimately just boring.
Speaker 2: Well, Q and A is a really interesting one because
Speaker 2: you know, James, I remember when it was much must
Speaker 2: watch television. You had to watch it to be across
Speaker 2: the news cycle. Every it was on the Monday, and
Speaker 2: every Tuesday there'd be stories off the back of it,
Speaker 2: things that happened. And then it just kind of it
Speaker 2: just kind of you know, fitted out in a very
Speaker 2: sad way. But I think it's just it is the
Speaker 2: one sort of format that a national broadcaster should have.
Speaker 2: And can you imagine working on a show like Q
Speaker 2: and A. And I think that it did need a revamp, right,
Speaker 2: but you're getting sacked or the show's like off air,
Speaker 2: and you've got a TikTok division just churning out the
Speaker 2: most ridiculous, absurd, just puerile kind of content and for
Speaker 2: a billion dollars a year, they cannot even staff a
Speaker 2: weekly panel show.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it seems disgraceful to me.
Speaker 10: I get Look, no one's gonna stand up for the
Speaker 10: ABC TikTok division on this program. I'm not going to
Speaker 10: do that. But what I would say, like back with
Speaker 10: those said, with the projects, like again, if you're pitching
Speaker 10: Q and A again, a one hour weekly chat show
Speaker 10: with five political figures, you know, debating I mean, that's
Speaker 10: eighteen years ago revolutionary Today it's everywhere. But so when
Speaker 10: you pitch at eighteen years ago, you can have a
Speaker 10: live audience, you can build a nightly program around this.
Speaker 10: But when there's podcasts, when there's you know, twenty four
Speaker 10: hour news programs like this, it doesn't have the luster.
Speaker 10: But what I think ABC Q and A never got
Speaker 10: that it wasn't it wasn't an event anymore. You didn't
Speaker 10: need a full studio audings, you didn't need questions from
Speaker 10: the audience, because again, that's X Now, it's not revolutionary,
Speaker 10: it's not cutting edge. If you downsize Q and A
Speaker 10: to just be a panel show, maybe it's still alive.
Speaker 10: But when you need to fill a studio and you
Speaker 10: need to do all these other things, it's just you
Speaker 10: can't have that in.
Speaker 2: Well yeah, I mean they don't have a profit incentive, right.
Speaker 2: And this is a thing where I think the ABC
Speaker 2: is making an absolute critical mistake. I think Hu Marx
Speaker 2: is really blundered on this one, because you should be
Speaker 2: able to put a product there which is intellectual and
Speaker 2: it's interesting, and for me watching Q and A, I
Speaker 2: think the problem with it was every week you've got
Speaker 2: the same tials on a couple of labor people are
Speaker 2: very moderate conservative in inverted commas, so to speak, and
Speaker 2: it's a sanitized program where people are saying predictable, nice
Speaker 2: things that they want to be applauded for on Twitter.
Speaker 2: And you can't watch it because there's no adversarial nature
Speaker 2: to the show. There's no debate, there's nothing interesting of substance,
Speaker 2: And it's not the media.
Speaker 3: Agree.
Speaker 5: I think when balance, I agree, it's not the medium.
Speaker 5: When balance gives way to editorializing, you lose the credibility.
Speaker 5: You lose credibility, and you lose the trust of the audience.
Speaker 5: And look, certainly shows like that, in formats like that
Speaker 5: are challenged by the rise of audio and podcasts and
Speaker 5: podcasts and other formats and things like that. But there's
Speaker 5: plenty of examples of these formats being successful on other
Speaker 5: linear channels, those that have reinvented themselves and still remained
Speaker 5: kind of balanced and invigorating for audiences. But yeah, I
Speaker 5: think it's as you say, it's less about the medium
Speaker 5: and challenges in this disrupted media landscape and more about
Speaker 5: the fact that they had just lost the trust of
Speaker 5: their audiences and become bory.
Speaker 3: What an absolute shame.
Speaker 2: Moving on though, because Gretatonberg, the media darling who has
Speaker 2: shifted from climate activism to the plight of the Palestinian well.
Speaker 2: She tried to get into Gaza by sailing there in
Speaker 2: what has been dubbed the selfie boat, but as expected,
Speaker 2: she was detained by Israel before she could even get
Speaker 2: very close.
Speaker 11: It's really forces have taken control of a ship carrying
Speaker 11: Gretaitunberg and eleven other pro Palestinian activists. The Madeline, which
Speaker 11: was carrying a small but symbolic amount of aid for Gaza,
Speaker 11: was boarded as it tried to break a naval blockade.
Speaker 11: It's now being towed two in Israeli paus. Videos and
Speaker 11: images were posted by the crew of the madly And
Speaker 11: as it tried to reach Gaza, including this image showing
Speaker 11: the crew seated on the vessel, all wearing life jackets
Speaker 11: with their hands in the air, after which the volunteers
Speaker 11: said a white irritant was being sprayed onto the decks.
Speaker 11: There's a drone.
Speaker 6: There's a drone right above.
Speaker 12: We are getting into pret one right now.
Speaker 3: Take cover.
Speaker 2: Now you might have missed it, but did you hear
Speaker 2: the reporter's characterization of Greta's mission a small but symbolic
Speaker 2: amount of aid. The media has encouraged, applauded, and glorified
Speaker 2: this woman to the point where she nearly entered a
Speaker 2: dangerous war zone. She would have achieved nothing, but to
Speaker 2: some journalists the symbolism would have been worth it. Let's
Speaker 2: bring the panel in to discuss symbolism. It's a value judgment.
Speaker 2: It's editorializing, right for the reporter just to sit there
Speaker 2: being like, that's symbolic. Well, symbolism has to kind of
Speaker 2: connote some sort of meaning, and the meaning is positive. Right,
Speaker 2: So she's adding that there's this vacuous, self serving selfie
Speaker 2: boat cruising into a war zone with people that just
Speaker 2: should not be there for their own safety.
Speaker 3: We've got the.
Speaker 2: Media just glorifying it and then labeling it as as symbolic.
Speaker 10: Yeah, Like, first off, she said, now there was a
Speaker 10: white heritinto on the boat. I thought that was Gretaitunberg.
Speaker 10: But aside from that, like, let's not think that at absolutely,
Speaker 10: at absolutely no point did anything happen in this whole
Speaker 10: journey that Gretaitunberg wasn't happy with. She went on in a
Speaker 10: small boat. She could have got like telling me that
Speaker 10: she got work around her, she got a free sandwich.
Speaker 10: You're telling me the network around Greta Tunberg couldn't have
Speaker 10: walked out for a bigger boat that would have been
Speaker 10: able to carry more aid. But you want the smaller
Speaker 10: boat because when the Israeli defense sports get on you, you
Speaker 10: look like the tiny, you know, humble people that getting
Speaker 10: ganged up on. Then you go to being kidnapped and
Speaker 10: you're asked to watch an octobers En video, you don't
Speaker 10: do it, and then they just put you on a
Speaker 10: plane home so easy as you can. Everything happened exactly
Speaker 10: the way gretitombo.
Speaker 2: It's just propagamada. And I saw a lot of journalists
Speaker 2: repeating the kidnapping line. It's just absurd and they should
Speaker 2: have more integrity than that.
Speaker 3: Darren, final thoughts on this for you agreed.
Speaker 5: I mean, it's really disappointing to see so many parts
Speaker 5: of the media take, you know, sort of take that
Speaker 5: self proclaimed activism face value. And I think also what
Speaker 5: they did there just undermined, you know, more grounded diplomatic
Speaker 5: and aid efforts that were actually happening on the ground.
Speaker 5: And as you pointed out, as well like their refusal
Speaker 5: to refusal to actually watch that October the eighth documentary
Speaker 5: really disappointing to hear they you know, they're not journalists,
Speaker 5: they are activists, but they should make an effort to
Speaker 5: you know, paint the full picture and show both sides
Speaker 5: of this terrible conflict that continues to go on.
Speaker 2: Aaron Davidson, James Bolt, thank you so much for joining us.
Speaker 2: We're going to take a quick break, but when we return,
Speaker 2: how the US media is encouraging rioters to burn down
Speaker 2: their own cities. Welcome back to Stars and Gripes, and
Speaker 2: this is the show where we pick apart the a
Speaker 2: gender driven media in the US and call out activism
Speaker 2: masquerading as journalism. Now, after watching the coverage of these
Speaker 2: violent riots all across America, I've come to one conclusion.
Speaker 2: You do not hate these activist journalists enough. They have
Speaker 2: emboldened rioters, provided a moral framework for them to burn
Speaker 2: down their own city. And it isn't the fault of
Speaker 2: marauding criminals. It is Donald Trump's fault for daring to
Speaker 2: deport illegal immigrants and make the mob angry.
Speaker 13: Right now, there are more troops deployed to Los Angeles
Speaker 13: than there are deployed in Syria and Iraq combined.
Speaker 3: Let me just repeat that, because.
Speaker 13: I've been thinking about this all day since one of
Speaker 13: our amazing producers shared this with me. There are more
Speaker 13: troops deployed to Los Angeles than there are deployed in
Speaker 13: Syria and Iraq combined. And right now, Donald Trump is
Speaker 13: also doing everything he can to make Los Angeles look
Speaker 13: and feel like a war zone. That's on purpose, that's
Speaker 13: what he's trying to do.
Speaker 3: Well.
Speaker 2: That's MSNBC's Jen Saki. She's Joe Biden's former press secretary
Speaker 2: who has stopped spinning democratic talking points for a living.
Speaker 2: To spin democratic talking points for a living, Trump.
Speaker 13: Has deployed four thousand federalized National Guard troops and seven
Speaker 13: hundred active duty Marines to Los Angeles, and the reality
Speaker 13: on the ground is that the protests that Trump sent
Speaker 13: these thousands of members of the military to deal with
Speaker 13: are both largely peaceful and primarily isolated, with an an
Speaker 13: incredibly small section of the city. You see that tiny
Speaker 13: speck on the map that is the area we're talking about.
Speaker 3: All of that footage.
Speaker 2: If you have seen of cars burning down, bricks through windows,
Speaker 2: stores looted, and scorched chaos left in the wake of rioters. Well,
Speaker 2: it doesn't exist. According to Saki, do not believe your
Speaker 2: lying eyes. Those cars are just peacefully burning. And I'm
Speaker 2: not sure the point she's trying to make about the
Speaker 2: curfew zone being small and therefore the riots are not happening.
Speaker 2: The two facts are completely unrelated. A geographic area can
Speaker 2: be small and still violent, but all of that aside.
Speaker 2: The people who are really to blame for the escalation
Speaker 2: in violence and for the spread of the riots are
Speaker 2: the journalists who offer a moral justification for the action.
Speaker 2: As protests were being planned in Chicago, the local paper
Speaker 2: was running headlines like this. The journalists and local politicians
Speaker 2: are literally encouraging protests because it serves their joint political goals.
Speaker 2: They don't get to decide that legal immigrants won't be deported.
Speaker 2: There was an election on this and their side lost.
Speaker 2: They have to accept it, not violently resist.
Speaker 13: NATO press conference, Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson made clear he
Speaker 13: also wasn't going to back down and urge the people
Speaker 13: of his city to do the same, saying, quote, I'm
Speaker 13: counting on all of Chicago to resist in this moment
Speaker 13: because whatever particular vulnerable group is targeted today, another group
Speaker 13: will be next.
Speaker 2: How can any reasonable person hear these media reports, read
Speaker 2: these headlines and not draw the conclusion that they want
Speaker 2: you to protest, they want you to resist, and they
Speaker 2: want you to cause chaos and damage because it helps
Speaker 2: them and it helps them make the argument that Trump
Speaker 2: is militant and overreaching in trying to stop the chaos. Well,
Speaker 2: joining me to discuss now is Sky News contributor Caroline
Speaker 2: de Russo. Caroline, what do you make of the way
Speaker 2: that the media has reported on the riots, particularly this
Speaker 2: phrase resist, the fact that they are pushing out a
Speaker 2: line that it is not only morally okay, but it's
Speaker 2: the morally correct position to resist, physically resist.
Speaker 14: If it wasn't so serious, it would be hilarious, Jack, Like,
Speaker 14: it would actually be hilarious. This is the sort of
Speaker 14: thing you'd actually expect from some kind of you know,
Speaker 14: satire or whatever. But unfortunately, as we've come to know
Speaker 14: and love with a lot of activist journalism, particularly at
Speaker 14: the US, it's not satire and they're serious. The simple
Speaker 14: fact of the matter is that there are laws around borders,
Speaker 14: and there are laws around immigration, and like you said
Speaker 14: in your editorial, the American people decided, well, we'd like
Speaker 14: those laws to be laws again, rather than just kind
Speaker 14: of opaque guidelines that you may opt in or out
Speaker 14: of enforcing. So essentially, what ICE is doing is just
Speaker 14: enforcing the law of the land, the law that as
Speaker 14: a general rule keeps things pretty peaceful. So this whole
Speaker 14: idea that somehow that law shouldn't be enforced, and the
Speaker 14: narrative in particular for me, jack around talking about these
Speaker 14: as vulnerable communities. Can we also talk about well, we're
Speaker 14: not just talking about everyday people here. We are talking
Speaker 14: about people who have violated federal immigration law, but then
Speaker 14: also on top of that people that have gone on
Speaker 14: to commit violent crime and other sorts of offenses. And
Speaker 14: I don't think that a narrative around calling that a
Speaker 14: vulnerable community. Well, it's not accurate and it's also not appropriate.
Speaker 14: But the way that they have pitched this as some
Speaker 14: sort of moral argument is in a sense to take
Speaker 14: away from the fact that the protest is against something
Speaker 14: one that is legal, which is the enforcement of the law,
Speaker 14: but also in a way of trying to bait the
Speaker 14: federal government, and that there has become very obvious and
Speaker 14: the simple fact in so far as California is concerned, Jack,
Speaker 14: is if those protests were peaceful, there wouldn't have been
Speaker 14: an issue. But the California government lost control of its
Speaker 14: own law and order, and that is simply the only
Speaker 14: reason why the federal government had to take action in
Speaker 14: order to protect those federal law enforcement officers. So there's
Speaker 14: lots of little slices taken here and there to suit
Speaker 14: a very convenient narrative, But when you actually lay it
Speaker 14: all out on the table, the journalists in this case
Speaker 14: are very severely left wanting.
Speaker 3: Well said well.
Speaker 2: The great thinker of our generation, Kim Kardashian, has weighed
Speaker 2: into the riots. Growing up in La I've seen how
Speaker 2: deeply immigrants are woven into the fabric of this city.
Speaker 2: They are our neighbors, friends, classmates, coworkers, and family. No
Speaker 2: matter where you fall politically, it's clear that our communities
Speaker 2: thrive because of the contribution of immigrants. We can't turn
Speaker 2: a blind eye when fear and injustice keep people from
Speaker 2: living their lives freely and safely. Now I actually agree
Speaker 2: with a lot of that, but I think the issue
Speaker 2: is that Kardashian is conflating immigration, which has broad support
Speaker 2: in the community with ilegal immigration, which is not tolerated
Speaker 2: by any country in the world except, for some reason
Speaker 2: pockets in America.
Speaker 3: Now.
Speaker 2: The Assistant Department of Homeland Security Secretary Trisha McLachlin appeared
Speaker 2: to make this point when she responded Kim Kardashian, which
Speaker 2: one of these convicted child molesters, murderers, drug traffickers, and rapists,
Speaker 2: would you like to stay in the country now, Caroline,
Speaker 2: let's bring you back in because you did sort of.
Speaker 3: Make this point a bit earlier.
Speaker 2: It is more complex than just this perceived war and immigration.
Speaker 2: That's not what this is about. This is about borders,
Speaker 2: this is about protecting national security. It's about the will
Speaker 2: of the people that did vote in this administration to
Speaker 2: specifically do this, and it was the fact that we
Speaker 2: did have undocumented people that were committing crimes. There are
Speaker 2: people that had been murdered, there were being children that
Speaker 2: have been victimized, and we're seeing a conflation between something
Speaker 2: which is, you know, completely accepted immigration and we're refusing
Speaker 2: to say that the problem is actually the illegal immigration.
Speaker 14: Well, that's exactly the case. And when I read that
Speaker 14: to it, I was like the bits that are missing here.
Speaker 14: Actually the really important bits, the really important nuce as
Speaker 14: to why all this is occurring in the first place.
Speaker 14: No one has an issue broadly with the concept of immigration.
Speaker 14: It happens all over the world. Sometimes there's a question
Speaker 14: around is it too much or is it too little?
Speaker 14: That's fine, but it's broadly accepted. And obviously, how do
Speaker 14: you think I got here, Jack? You know, my family
Speaker 14: came here in the nineteen fifties, and all our migrant
Speaker 14: communities they bring something you know, cultural or worker or whatever,
Speaker 14: and it does it adds to our society. The thing
Speaker 14: that is I think particularly egregious about the comment that
Speaker 14: she makes is the fact that the social issues and
Speaker 14: the violence and the community safety, which is the other
Speaker 14: thing Jack, is not something that she has to live with.
Speaker 14: It's to live in her in her rarefied air, her
Speaker 14: very safety. I'm sure she's got walls and guards and
Speaker 14: all those sorts of things that she is not, you know,
Speaker 14: in danger every other day, in danger of the consequences
Speaker 14: of illegal immigration, you know, like you like you said,
Speaker 14: the violence, you know, offenses against children, that the drugs,
Speaker 14: all of those sorts of things are not things which
Speaker 14: she has to live with So it's very very cute
Speaker 14: to sit up there, you know, in your rarefied air,
Speaker 14: to suggest that this actually isn't a problem when you
Speaker 14: have no idea how the other half live.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well said, Well more celebrity reactions. The terminator has
Speaker 2: entered the fray. Arnold Schwarzenegger is not happy. Were journalists
Speaker 2: reporting on these riots and people filming them because well,
Speaker 2: it could hurt tourism.
Speaker 1: They make it out do the war zone, the whole
Speaker 1: Los Angeles, the whole city or the county. And the
Speaker 1: fact of the matter is maybe zero point zero one
Speaker 1: percent of the area of Los Angeles has problems and
Speaker 1: there's a protest. Yeah, And so I think that this
Speaker 1: is important for people to know because I don't want
Speaker 1: all of a sudden tourism to suffer in Los Angeles
Speaker 1: because what they see in television, because the media sometimes
Speaker 1: shows it as if the whole Los Angeles is a
Speaker 1: big war zone, which isn't really the case.
Speaker 3: None of Los Angeles is or war.
Speaker 1: This wouldn't happen if the politicians would do the work.
Speaker 2: Two things, again, this argument that a geographically small zone
Speaker 2: means it can't be violent. Obviously, it's a flawed argument,
Speaker 2: but also his concern is not the fact that the
Speaker 2: riots are happening, but rather the people can see that
Speaker 2: they are happening.
Speaker 3: Now, Caroline, it's it's.
Speaker 2: A strange point to make, because surely you would be
Speaker 2: saying everyone go home, please go home, don't burn down
Speaker 2: your own community. These are business owners, by the way,
Speaker 2: I'm sure some of these business owners are immigrants themselves
Speaker 2: that they're burning down. I'm sure that there's victims of
Speaker 2: these riots that impact that community that everyone is vacuously
Speaker 2: pretending to be standing up for. But instead of that,
Speaker 2: he's saying, well, no, it's the media's fault for showing
Speaker 2: you that burning car.
Speaker 14: What do you think, Well, look, I'm not sure that
Speaker 14: looting an apple storey is going to save anyone for deportation.
Speaker 14: So we have seen a fair bit of that sort
Speaker 14: of footage. It is happening, and like you said, whether
Speaker 14: it's a small area or a large area, it is occurring.
Speaker 14: It is the media's job to report it. It's also
Speaker 14: the media's job to report accurately about the circumstances of
Speaker 14: that occurring. So I don't have any particular issue if
Speaker 14: the media says something, well, look this is confined to
Speaker 14: X part of LA or a certain number of blocks
Speaker 14: in LA, that that just gives context to what is
Speaker 14: actually happening. The bit that I do agree with him
Speaker 14: is is that the politicians have to do the work.
Speaker 14: And the simple fact of the matter is if Biden
Speaker 14: had done his job, and if Newson had a done
Speaker 14: his job, well, then we wouldn't be having this conversation
Speaker 14: in the first place.
Speaker 2: Caroline Russo, thank you so much for your insights. A
Speaker 2: quick break, but when we return, we sit down with
Speaker 2: media watchdog columnist Jared Henderson. Welcome back. Joining me now
Speaker 2: as he does each and every week, is Sky News
Speaker 2: Australia's media watchdog columnist Jared Henderson.
Speaker 3: Thank you for joining us.
Speaker 8: Pleasure.
Speaker 2: Now we've got to grab for you to react to
Speaker 2: ABC News Breakfast. How do we think the Bridget Brennan
Speaker 2: responds when somebody is a Trump critic.
Speaker 15: All of these represent violations of the rule of law
Speaker 15: and the constitution that take the US down from that
Speaker 15: consolidated liberal democracy status to a more middling competitive authoritarian
Speaker 15: regime that's closer to something like Hungary currently.
Speaker 12: Well wow, well yeah, when I was watching it, I
Speaker 12: thought wow myself earlier, Bridge of Brennan had raised the
Speaker 12: issue of fascism, and when mister Grumbash raised this issue
Speaker 12: of authoritarianism, she just goes, wow, just what I wanted
Speaker 12: to hear. Is a bit like the Australian football team
Speaker 12: had had kicked a goal or something, Wow, as terrific.
Speaker 3: So it's an infatuation with comments, isn't it.
Speaker 8: Yeah, it's not.
Speaker 12: There's no analysis. I mean, you don't say why do
Speaker 12: you say that? Or I think that's a good idea,
Speaker 12: or perhaps you might consider this year does go wow,
Speaker 12: like you scored a goal.
Speaker 2: Which they do in other cases. We've actually got some
Speaker 2: examples later on, but normally they put qualifications on if
Speaker 2: they don't like it. But if somebody sits there and
Speaker 2: says that Trump is an evil authoritarian dictator, all you
Speaker 2: can just muster is just a simple wow.
Speaker 12: And the other problem is the lack of historical knowledge.
Speaker 12: I mean, anyone who understands anything about Europe in the
Speaker 12: first half of the twentieth century knows what fascism is.
Speaker 8: It was manifest in Italy in Germany.
Speaker 12: But the idea that how however much you like or
Speaker 12: dislike Trump, has nothing to do with fascism, and let's
Speaker 12: fascism just means someone you don't like or don't agree with.
Speaker 3: That's probably well, we've spoken about this before.
Speaker 2: It's the watering down of the English language as well,
Speaker 2: and it trivializes. That's why I hate the far right
Speaker 2: label when it's clearly just somebody who's you know, more
Speaker 2: right wing than there, because right far right has a
Speaker 2: connotation of they're basically Nazis, they're genetic supremacists and they
Speaker 2: want to murder disabled people. Yet we're using that word
Speaker 2: for somebody that maybe has an issue with mass immigration. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 2: Well moving on Malcolm Turnbull Orcus obviously some issues there.
Speaker 2: But Malcolm Turbull, they've wheeled him out and he's found
Speaker 2: it very easy to get a bit of airtime.
Speaker 3: In fact, you've posted its time to wake up. Who
Speaker 3: needs to wake up? Malcolm Turnbull?
Speaker 9: And why well.
Speaker 8: We need to wake up in Australia.
Speaker 12: I mean, frankly, there is a denial of reality in Australia.
Speaker 8: I mean there is a very high.
Speaker 15: Prospect, very high probabilit prospect that we will end up
Speaker 15: with no submarines in this deal.
Speaker 12: Well, Turnbulls sort of got an open door to the ABC.
Speaker 12: Whenever he's got a thought, either they ring him or
Speaker 12: he rings them, and he's in so yesterday on the
Speaker 12: World Today he was talking about this and then he
Speaker 12: got another go on seven thirty last night. And what
Speaker 12: no one really put to him with any great strength
Speaker 12: is that he's an antagonist. I mean, right, whatever you
Speaker 12: say about Orcus the submarine deal, he's an antagonist because
Speaker 12: he wanted to go with the French deal, where you'd
Speaker 12: move a nuclear submarine to a conventional submarine.
Speaker 8: Many people thought that wouldn't work.
Speaker 12: In any event, the Morrison government, with the approval of
Speaker 12: the Labor Opposition, went for Orcus. Now Malcolm Turnbull's very
Speaker 12: embittered about this and he's always happy to have a
Speaker 12: go at Scott Morrison who was the former Prime minister,
Speaker 12: or of people like Richard Miles, who he calls them.
Speaker 12: Last night on seven thirty, he didn't say the deputy
Speaker 12: prime Minister and the former Prime ministry. He spoke about
Speaker 12: Richard and Scott and all this sort of demeaning terms,
Speaker 12: and substantially on neither program was he confronted. Now, I
Speaker 12: have no objection to Malcolm Turnbull rocking up to the
Speaker 12: ABC sitting down with someone on the other side of
Speaker 12: the table who understands about as much about it as
Speaker 12: he does, who can have a discussion.
Speaker 8: But you don't have that.
Speaker 12: You just have the preaching of an antagonist, which is
Speaker 12: what you had last time. So there was Malcolm Turble
Speaker 12: some years ago talking about miserable ghosts who spoke about
Speaker 12: things for politics, And there's never been a more ghostly,
Speaker 12: miserable person that I've seen who's an ex politician in
Speaker 12: recent years.
Speaker 8: I mean, he really does can't stop.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's journalistic slight of hand, and we'll talk about
Speaker 2: very soon about when the ABC does choose to put
Speaker 2: a qualification on. But there is a deliberate choice to
Speaker 2: get somebody on who's anti orchus three times, as you've
Speaker 2: pointed out, for that program, and they're not offer the
Speaker 2: context about why maybe politically they don't like the ideas,
Speaker 2: So does that color the langue, which does that add
Speaker 2: any nuance? And nuance only really seems appropriate when it's
Speaker 2: a conservative viewpoint that they don't like.
Speaker 8: Yes, I don't like it.
Speaker 12: I mean essentially, well, it was embraced by the Labor Party,
Speaker 12: but I mean it's Richard.
Speaker 8: Miles from the labor right. They don't like the labor right.
Speaker 12: I mean, they're like the airBC people like Degreenes, they
Speaker 12: like the tills, they.
Speaker 8: Love the tills, left the tills.
Speaker 12: They like the labor left, but they don't like the
Speaker 12: labor right, and they don't like the Coalition obviously. So
Speaker 12: when they criticize the Labor Party, if they do, it's
Speaker 12: always from the left perspective, and you're seeing it here.
Speaker 2: Well, Sally Sarup, she's interviewed Dennis Ross, who's the former
Speaker 2: US diplomatic has worked for president's Bush, Clinton Obama, very experienced.
Speaker 2: Let's have a listen to see how this interview is handled.
Speaker 16: But even if there is disruption and theft by Hamas,
Speaker 16: should the aid be pushed through anyway?
Speaker 7: I have a problem with providing a that allows Hamas
Speaker 7: to maintain its control because in maintaining its control, the
Speaker 7: suffering of Palestinians is guaranteed.
Speaker 16: Dennis Ross will need to leave it there. Thank you
Speaker 16: for your time this morning on breakfast.
Speaker 8: Sure, glad to do it.
Speaker 5: By way.
Speaker 16: It's Dennis Ross, their former US peace negotiator and Special
Speaker 16: Middle East Coordinator under Presidents Bush, Clinton and Obama, and
Speaker 16: last month the United Nations World Food Program said there
Speaker 16: was no evidence that Hamas was stealing food aid in Gaza.
Speaker 2: It's extraordinary. It's to say to the audience, Hey, that
Speaker 2: guest who we just listened to, they're a liar and
Speaker 2: there is no evidence for what they were saying.
Speaker 3: You just made it up.
Speaker 2: Why would you not put the proposition to the expert
Speaker 2: you're interviewing. Why cut off the interview, wait a few
Speaker 2: seconds and then say what they just said is well,
Speaker 2: this was a.
Speaker 8: Very rare experience.
Speaker 12: I mean, Dennis Ross is a very well regarded for
Speaker 12: American diploma, former American diplomat, and here you had a
Speaker 12: very senior person criticizing Hamas. This is absolutely rare on
Speaker 12: the ABC and also criticizing Hamas is stopping food getting
Speaker 12: and food and medicine getting to Pellas, Indians and Gaza,
Speaker 12: which they are doing, which they are doing. And when
Speaker 12: Dennis Ross says that, and he knows what he's talking about,
Speaker 12: you don't really challenge him on it. You just sort
Speaker 12: of wait for him to go away, and then you
Speaker 12: come back and say, hang on a minute, the un
Speaker 12: which he already criticized, or you an organization says you're
Speaker 12: not right, and so.
Speaker 3: He could have account of you.
Speaker 2: He could say there is an issue with the with
Speaker 2: the with with that report, there is an issue with
Speaker 2: that viewpoint.
Speaker 12: He could have but he wasn't given the opportunity. No,
Speaker 12: he did say some of the things earlier, and so
Speaker 12: on my Media Watchdog blog coming out soon putting a
Speaker 12: full transcript of the whole interview and people can read
Speaker 12: and form their own conclusions. Was a very good analysis
Speaker 12: by mister Ross. And then he just gets wiped and
Speaker 12: a bit overwhelmingly. You have you have pro Hamas or
Speaker 12: pro Palestinian views on the ABC. You get someone who's
Speaker 12: intelligent and criticism I mean of Hamas and that's how
Speaker 12: he's treated well.
Speaker 2: It is a brilliant column you do for us in
Speaker 2: every single week on Sky News. Talking to au Jared Henderson,
Speaker 2: thank you so much for joining us. That's all the
Speaker 2: time we have for tonight, but we will be back
Speaker 2: the same time next week and up next is Newsnight.