Speaker 1: This is the Media Show with Jack houting Hello and
Speaker 1: welcome to the final media show of the year. I'm
Speaker 1: Jack Houghton, and tonight we'll discuss Times new Person of
Speaker 1: the Year, a war between labor and big tech, and
Speaker 1: much more. But first, last week we discussed a radical
Speaker 1: leftist journalist who justified the murder of a health insurance CEO.
Speaker 1: Former Washington Post journalist Taylor Lorenz made headlines around the
Speaker 1: world for saying, people wonder why we want these executives dead.
Speaker 1: But since then, the alleged killer, Luigi Mangioni, has been caught,
Speaker 1: so surely, now that there is a face to the crime,
Speaker 1: reporters are starting to treat it for what it is, murder.
Speaker 2: Why would you be in such a celebratory mood about
Speaker 2: the execution of another human being. Aren't you supposed to
Speaker 2: be on the caring sharing left, where you know you
Speaker 2: believe in the sanctity of life.
Speaker 3: I do believe in the sanctity of life, and I
Speaker 3: think that's why I felt, along with so many other
Speaker 3: Americans joy. Unfortunately, you know, because.
Speaker 4: Seriously, I mean execution.
Speaker 3: Maybe not joy, but certainly not no, certainly not empathy.
Speaker 3: Because again, we'll.
Speaker 2: Watching the footage, How can this make you joyful? This
Speaker 2: guy's a husband, is a father, and he's been dumb
Speaker 2: down in the middle of Manhattan.
Speaker 4: Why did that make you joy?
Speaker 5: For the Americans?
Speaker 1: Remember when the Left used to be about compassion and nuance. Well,
Speaker 1: when given a chance to walk back her comments about
Speaker 1: feeling joy, Lorenz doubled down. Now watch the eyes in
Speaker 1: this clip. They give a whole new meaning to the
Speaker 1: word crazy.
Speaker 6: Should they all be killed?
Speaker 7: Then?
Speaker 2: Should they all be killed these healthcare executives? Would that
Speaker 2: make you even more joyful? I?
Speaker 3: No, that would not. And uh I think because yours?
Speaker 3: Because it does, It wouldn't fix it. To find the
Speaker 3: whole thing hilarious, I find your your questions.
Speaker 4: Be murdered in this. I don't find it funny at all.
Speaker 3: I don't find it funny that tens of thousands of
Speaker 3: Americans die every year and because they are denied life
Speaker 3: saving healthcare from people like.
Speaker 1: This year, Taylor Lorenz, seemingly advocating for murder as a
Speaker 1: solution to societal issues, came at an awkward time for
Speaker 1: our ABC here in Australia. Remember a few weeks ago
Speaker 1: when their dopey chair Kim Williams attacked podcast to Joe
Speaker 1: Rogan as a repulsive extremist.
Speaker 8: I personally find it deeply repulsive, and to think that
Speaker 8: someone has such remarkable power in the United States is
Speaker 8: something that I look at him disbelief.
Speaker 1: The ABC sought to cover that story in a podcast,
Speaker 1: and they decided to lean on the expertise of old
Speaker 1: Crazy Eyes Taylor Lorenz to inform viewers at the taxpayer's expense,
Speaker 1: of course, why Joe Rogan was so dangerous.
Speaker 9: I mean it, look, I do think that he's that
Speaker 9: Joe Rogan has tapped into something, and I do think
Speaker 9: it's fair to say at this point that he does
Speaker 9: prey on people's vulnerabilities and sort of fear. Joe Rogan
Speaker 9: has pushed a lot of sort of extreme rhetoric and
Speaker 9: a lot of the episodes of his show are built
Speaker 9: around sort of fomenting fears. He's pushed a lot of
Speaker 9: dangerous conspiracy theories about immigrants and other things. And then
Speaker 9: he also just you know, has a lot of kind
Speaker 9: of kooky people on a show, like putting forward conspiracy
Speaker 9: theories about aliens and stuff like that.
Speaker 1: How humiliating for the ABC. The ABC's tech expert in
Speaker 1: this case, says that Joe Rogan is dangerous and spreading fear,
Speaker 1: and then she went on to say she felt joy
Speaker 1: when a man was gummed down in the street. Now,
Speaker 1: this is why people are losing trust in legacy media,
Speaker 1: and this is why the ABC is quickly making itself irrelevant. Well,
Speaker 1: joining me on the panel this week is Sky News,
Speaker 1: contributed to James Bolt and Louise Roberts. Louise, and start
Speaker 1: with you, obviously, and I don't want to gloss over
Speaker 1: the fact that America has this horrific problem in their
Speaker 1: healthcare industry. Surely the solution is to tackle that legislatively
Speaker 1: with debate. And we got these supposedly serious journalists taking
Speaker 1: this quite reprehensible position.
Speaker 4: What are your thoughts?
Speaker 7: Well, Tanner goes after Joe Rogan, saying that he's spreading
Speaker 7: conspiracy theories in dangerous messages, but he's not going out
Speaker 7: in the street and saying it's okay for a CEO
Speaker 7: of a healthcare company to be gone down because somehow
Speaker 7: vindicates the trauma of thousands of Americans and maybe not
Speaker 7: their health claims.
Speaker 1: Through as if it would impact the industry, as if
Speaker 1: he's not going to be replaced tomorrow by somebody else,
Speaker 1: as if it would have any kind of impact whatsoever.
Speaker 7: That's right, and peace absolutely skews her brilliantly because this
Speaker 7: man was a father, and he was a husband, and
Speaker 7: he ran a company. So if you don't agree with
Speaker 7: the way the company deals with healthcare, the solution is
Speaker 7: not to murder him in the street, but to for
Speaker 7: her to indicate that and say that that's somehow a
Speaker 7: great message and American supporter, which.
Speaker 5: They clearly don't.
Speaker 7: Americans were horrified by what she said, and they were
Speaker 7: horrified by what happened to the CEO.
Speaker 4: Yeah, completely agree.
Speaker 1: And the other element to this is our taxpayer dollars
Speaker 1: have gone to getting this person, propping her up as
Speaker 1: some kind of a tech expert. And the irony of
Speaker 1: this is that she says that Joe Rogan is dangerous.
Speaker 10: Yeah, so let me tell you who Taylor the Rends is,
Speaker 10: because there's probably a lot of people watching that have
Speaker 10: thankfully never heard of her.
Speaker 5: And now we've had to break the eye.
Speaker 10: So she had already left the Washington Post by the
Speaker 10: time this interview aired, and she has also this month
Speaker 10: lost her podcast with Box. She doesn't have her mask
Speaker 10: head to her name, So clearly she's not a.
Speaker 5: Big mover and shaker in the industry.
Speaker 10: And if we go back a couple of years, she's
Speaker 10: also the woman that docks the libs of TikTok So
Speaker 10: libs of TikTok Twitter account creator she rocked up at
Speaker 10: her house, says to creator, knocked on her door and said,
Speaker 10: I've got some questions to ask Now, she says, there
Speaker 10: Joe Rogan for men's fear, What could be more fearful
Speaker 10: than if you're an anonymous account user a journalist knocking
Speaker 10: at your door and saying, we're some questions, so I
Speaker 10: have I'll take my like she walks around with a
Speaker 10: mask when there's no pandemic on because she's so terrified
Speaker 10: of getting a cold.
Speaker 4: Yes, there's nothing more fear.
Speaker 10: It does strike that the ABC journalist the book than
Speaker 10: was more interested in just getting a yes and just
Speaker 10: carrying on rather than thinking of themselves. Did I get
Speaker 10: someone good to talk about that?
Speaker 1: Well, But just what they're saying is here's some very
Speaker 1: vocal left wing person to talk about this evil conservative podcast.
Speaker 1: By the way, Joe Rogan isn't even you know, an
Speaker 1: orthodox conservative podcast. He started off on the left. He
Speaker 1: endorsed Bernie Sanders film community. You know, he's someone that
Speaker 1: was driven to endorsing Trump because of this absurdity that
Speaker 1: we're seeing playing out.
Speaker 7: In an eating hours and hours interviewing him, and that
Speaker 7: was one of the key factors, as we know, apart
Speaker 7: from obviously what happened in when Trump was shot, in
Speaker 7: actually getting him into back into power, getting him back
Speaker 7: into the White House. People listen to the nuanced interviewing
Speaker 7: that Joe Rogan did with Trump and thought, actually, I'm.
Speaker 4: Going to vote for this.
Speaker 1: And that's why Kim Williams, who's supposed to be the
Speaker 1: head of a media organization him not understanding that point,
Speaker 1: I don't see how he's fit. I think he's far
Speaker 1: too daton to be running an organization. If he doesn't
Speaker 1: understand that point, he doesn't understand why people interested in
Speaker 1: Jie Rogan. But let's move on, because Elon Musk has
Speaker 1: hit out at the CEO of Axius Media, who had
Speaker 1: a meltdown a few weeks ago, angry about the rise
Speaker 1: of citizen journalism. Now, if you missed the comments, have
Speaker 1: a listen.
Speaker 4: Everything we do is under fire.
Speaker 11: Elon Musk sits on Twitter every day or X Today,
Speaker 11: saying like we are the media, you are the media.
Speaker 11: My message to Elon Musk is both, you're not the media.
Speaker 4: You having.
Speaker 11: You, having a blue check mark, a Twitter handle in
Speaker 11: three hundred words of cleverness doesn't make you a reporter.
Speaker 11: You don't do that by popping off on Twitter. You
Speaker 11: don't do that by having an ape. You do it
Speaker 11: by doing the hard work.
Speaker 1: The clip was lapped up by MSNBC's Morning Joe, which
Speaker 1: gave it a round of applause.
Speaker 4: Come on, so clap.
Speaker 12: First of all, I've got to say extraordinary content.
Speaker 5: It needed to be said. It continues to need to
Speaker 5: be said when all of.
Speaker 12: The garbage is flying around on social media, lying about reporters,
Speaker 12: lying about the hard work they do, lying about the
Speaker 12: hard work editors do, lying about everything up and down
Speaker 12: about not only their alternative set of facts, but alternative
Speaker 12: set of facts about.
Speaker 4: What people like you do. Or if social media people lying.
Speaker 12: Every day, every hour, every minute about the news, what
Speaker 12: you do matters.
Speaker 1: If you say it confidently enough, maybe it becomes true.
Speaker 1: Responded to that video this week, saying you are the media.
Speaker 1: Now they are the past. Let's bring the panel back
Speaker 1: into discuss. Luise Musk obviously has made his position with
Speaker 1: the legacy media very clearly. He's also a bit of
Speaker 1: a troll in good fun and good jest agitate.
Speaker 4: But the thing is it works.
Speaker 1: So this axious CEO going up there and having a
Speaker 1: temper tentrum or put Joe Scarborough, the host of Burning
Speaker 1: Joe and his little tantrum to one side. Why how
Speaker 1: embarrassing to let the trolling impact you when you're a
Speaker 1: professional boss, when you're a CEO and you're swearing on
Speaker 1: stage and having a meltdown about citizen journalism.
Speaker 7: This is where maybe sat an older subset of trained
Speaker 7: journalists really present themselves as dinosaurs and not willing to
Speaker 7: adapt to the new media and the way people are
Speaker 7: consuming media. I mean, citizen journalism is fantastic user generated content, whatever.
Speaker 5: You like to call it.
Speaker 7: It really resonates with the community people. That's how they
Speaker 7: communicate with it.
Speaker 1: A lot of reporters are also quoting things that are
Speaker 1: said on X. You know, there is that reverse paradigm
Speaker 1: as well, where here's reporters. I bet if you go
Speaker 1: to their website you can find a lot of instances
Speaker 1: of content which has been generated on that platform by
Speaker 1: these citizen job.
Speaker 7: I members of the publicer'll talk about, and certainly John
Speaker 7: the pandemic, we found it super useful where people were
Speaker 7: swapping information with each other globally about how coronavirus was
Speaker 7: affecting us. So I think that panel should be embracing
Speaker 7: it and getting citizen journalists on their show rather than
Speaker 7: shooting them down and saying, oh woe betide us, our
Speaker 7: industry is in decline.
Speaker 4: Completely agree.
Speaker 1: I mean more communication between people the better. But what
Speaker 1: do you think of this story?
Speaker 5: What James Vander heis the actually as guy you played.
Speaker 10: He said, journalism isn't about having three hundred words of
Speaker 10: cleverness and an opinion.
Speaker 5: That is what it is like at the end of
Speaker 5: the day. That's what it's been for six hundred years.
Speaker 5: I thought.
Speaker 1: I thought it was a ten word headline, like we
Speaker 1: don't pick up anvils and go to war, Like we
Speaker 1: just sit there and we come up with words of
Speaker 1: clever list and the irony of MSNBC going on a
Speaker 1: rand saying what we do matter is well like hemorrhage
Speaker 1: viewers every single show is hilarious. Yeah, I think there's
Speaker 1: definitely a little bit in that which is like, I
Speaker 1: think we still matter. I think there's a little bit
Speaker 1: about please do we still matter? Anyway, let's move on,
Speaker 1: because Time magazine has a new Person of the Year.
Speaker 1: President Donald Trump graces the cover for the second time,
Speaker 1: and they write for ninety seven years, the editors of
Speaker 1: Time have been picking the person of the year, the
Speaker 1: individual who, for better or for worse, did the most
Speaker 1: to shape the world and the headlines over the past
Speaker 1: twelve months. In many years, that choice is a difficult one.
Speaker 1: In twenty twenty four, it was not. It definitely was
Speaker 1: not a difficult choice. In this Saul and his political comeback.
Speaker 1: If you loathe him, if you love him, it was
Speaker 1: incredible the way that he was able to galvanize a
Speaker 1: country around his policies, in his position, when you had
Speaker 1: all of these institutions trying to tear him down, How
Speaker 1: could he not be the most impactful person?
Speaker 7: I agree, And it was great to see the editor
Speaker 7: of Time, Sam Jacobs actually make that point that there
Speaker 7: was no other choice, and the story of redemption and
Speaker 7: victory is fabulous. And I thought there was a really
Speaker 7: nice piece in that where he talked about Trump being
Speaker 7: almost wistful because he's won the fight. So what's next
Speaker 7: for Trump? Because he's very comfortable as a pugelist, He's
Speaker 7: very comfortable taking things on, as we know when he
Speaker 7: was shot and he said fight, fight, fight. That's been
Speaker 7: his mant since then, make America great again. So it'd
Speaker 7: be interesting to see where he goes from that. But
Speaker 7: I thought it was a great piece. I'm very relief
Speaker 7: they didn't stitch him up. I'm glad that actually made
Speaker 7: him out.
Speaker 1: To be was a rare case of balance, right, it was, yes, James,
Speaker 1: your thoughts?
Speaker 10: Yeah, I was going to say, I know John's already
Speaker 10: won in twenty sixteen. But does it seem that there's
Speaker 10: less anger at the Trump victory from the left than
Speaker 10: there was in twenty sixteen?
Speaker 5: Less outpouring.
Speaker 10: I haven't seen as many people threatened to move to Canada.
Speaker 10: I haven't seen plans for a women's march on Washington
Speaker 10: as we did in.
Speaker 1: Twenty Well, the outrage doesn't match the pre election rhetoric, No,
Speaker 1: which is really weird as genuine Well, you must have lied, Yes,
Speaker 1: you're lying now?
Speaker 5: Did you lie?
Speaker 1: Then?
Speaker 10: If you genuinely thought you had just lost to Hitler,
Speaker 10: you wouldn't be taking it as line down as the
Speaker 10: left ear and.
Speaker 5: So they knew all.
Speaker 10: But also are they going like, hang on this kind
Speaker 10: of clown show, cartoonish outrage At every single step of
Speaker 10: the way, people switch off, like it's good for the
Speaker 10: coastal leads, and it's good at dinner parties. And I
Speaker 10: told Trump this, and I tweeted out that. But for
Speaker 10: the people in you know, Wisconsin, Michigan, Philadelphia, the places
Speaker 10: you need to win, they just zone out and they go, Actually,
Speaker 10: the other guy, it seems more fun.
Speaker 1: Well said, well, we're going to take a quick break,
Speaker 1: but when we return. Inside Labour's war with big tech,
Speaker 1: welcome back. The Labor government has made another move in
Speaker 1: its war against big tech.
Speaker 13: Well, it's a big day for the Australian media landscape today,
Speaker 13: with the federal government set to announce plans to force
Speaker 13: big tech companies to pay local publishers for news now.
Speaker 13: Under the planned companies such as Meta, owner of Facebook
Speaker 13: and Instagram could face financial penalties for breaches.
Speaker 1: Media organizations were fast to back in moves by Labor,
Speaker 1: making the point that these platforms have become an intrinsic
Speaker 1: part of how Australians consume news.
Speaker 14: Imagine, at the height of the bushfire season, property being destroyed,
Speaker 14: lives being threatened, and the news bullets that so many
Speaker 14: rely on through their phones and tablets.
Speaker 15: What is the latest there this evening were suddenly blocked
Speaker 15: by the big social media companies. That's what happened in
Speaker 15: Canada last year after the government demanded Facebook pay for
Speaker 15: news content.
Speaker 1: And the ABC was quick to point out that the
Speaker 1: disruptive presence social media has had on regional newsrooms.
Speaker 6: After printing for more than one hundred and twenty five years,
Speaker 6: Broken Hills independent newspaper Barrier Truth close down this year. Sadly,
Speaker 6: it's a common sight in regional Australia as vital advertising
Speaker 6: money is lost to social media platforms.
Speaker 1: Let's bring the panel back into discuss Lewis. It's obviously
Speaker 1: a second stage. The Coalition brought in the News Media
Speaker 1: Bargaining Code, which would have involved having to designate these
Speaker 1: platus forms, which is this whole other process. But this
Speaker 1: is an interesting tactic because this is hitting them with
Speaker 1: tax dollars and offering incenters. How do you think Labor's
Speaker 1: done on this, Oh, pretty well.
Speaker 7: I think if they can get it through and actually
Speaker 7: get big tech to pay, because if they're in the
Speaker 7: space and using our content, then they should be paying
Speaker 7: for it. And I don't like their argument. I don't
Speaker 7: buy it when they say, well, we amplify your content,
Speaker 7: but the fact is that they're not journalists themselves. All
Speaker 7: they are is a kind of an amplifier, as they say.
Speaker 7: So if the federal government can actually push you through,
Speaker 7: I think it'd be a great idea, because you know
Speaker 7: social media, we know. What we don't want is a
Speaker 7: situation like we've had in Canada where they have a
Speaker 7: blackout and people's lives are impacted.
Speaker 4: Yeah, definitely.
Speaker 1: And look, the way that I view this from a
Speaker 1: digital perspective is you've got these companies that are scraping
Speaker 1: up eighty percent of the AD revenue in Australia and
Speaker 1: they're not really giving back in the way that other
Speaker 1: companies or other industries have to when they have this
Speaker 1: exceptional influences on resources or people's lives. Here, for example,
Speaker 1: mining companies, when they have to pay royalties. It's a
Speaker 1: very clever way to go at it though from a
Speaker 1: tax point of view, because it will be very difficult
Speaker 1: for them to avoid it. Either they pay the tax
Speaker 1: or they get fine.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 10: I just think the bigger issue here is that the
Speaker 10: dance between big tech and Australia is always going to
Speaker 10: be a pretty ugly one. Until we have a government
Speaker 10: more committed to freedom speech. I can't imagine that a
Speaker 10: lot of Meta and the other social media companies reaction
Speaker 10: to Australia over the last year hasn't been informed by
Speaker 10: what was in Labour's Misinformation Bill or what they said
Speaker 10: they wanted to do. If you're a tech company and
Speaker 10: you're going to be responsible for what people post on
Speaker 10: your website, from media companies or even from individuals, you
Speaker 10: are going to make sure your model is less eliciting
Speaker 10: the ability for people to write and spread news. And
Speaker 10: until we have a government that says, you know what,
Speaker 10: we're not doing that anymore freedom of speech, going to
Speaker 10: do Misinformation Bill, I don't think big tech is going
Speaker 10: to look at Australia as a company as a country
Speaker 10: that wants.
Speaker 5: To do business with.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 1: I think the other unknown here is what will Donald
Speaker 1: Trump do. He could see this, perceive this to be
Speaker 1: an attack by Australia on these great American companies, and
Speaker 1: he is in the middle of slapping tariffs on a
Speaker 1: lot of different countries, and that could be something which
Speaker 1: ends up giving the government a bit of pause. But
Speaker 1: let's move on, because Moira Deeming, a victim of relentless
Speaker 1: and a false slur campaign, had a major victory this
Speaker 1: week after Victorian opposition leader John Persudo labeled her a
Speaker 1: Nazi sympaviser for campaigning in favor of women's.
Speaker 4: Sex base rights.
Speaker 1: Now, Pursuna was found to have defame Deeming, which was
Speaker 1: obvious to anyone who knew the facts, and Deeming spoke
Speaker 1: outside the courthouse about the pressure she faced.
Speaker 16: This judgment is a public acknowledgment that there was never
Speaker 16: any justification legal, moral or political for what was done
Speaker 16: to me and to my family. One Liberal party value
Speaker 16: was honored or furthered in Victoria by this relentless and
Speaker 16: remorseless campaign to discredit me and everybody who stood by me.
Speaker 16: But I was never going to let it go unchallenged
Speaker 16: in this state.
Speaker 4: Let's bring the panel back in Luiz.
Speaker 1: You've got this situation here where yes Pursudo put out
Speaker 1: these statements saying that she was a Nazi sympathizer.
Speaker 4: Absurd that he did it.
Speaker 1: He partly fell for a trap that the likes of
Speaker 1: the Guardian and the ABC set by letting them. You've
Speaker 1: got a man there who, instead of fighting it and
Speaker 1: defending his people, threw her under the bus, listened to
Speaker 1: the media which was.
Speaker 4: Lying about this, and he's lost.
Speaker 1: I think the thing that has gone unset in all
Speaker 1: of this is all the journalists that republished that, all
Speaker 1: the journalists that looked at that, and you know, she's
Speaker 1: not a Nazi. She's there talking about the transgender issue,
Speaker 1: and they deceptively pushed that through. There hasn't been accountability
Speaker 1: for that.
Speaker 7: No, and I think anyone who uses that term to
Speaker 7: describe some it is such a less lazy, lazy and abhorrent,
Speaker 7: and particularly in the current climate that we've experienced the
Speaker 7: last two or three weeks as well. And he's the
Speaker 7: leader of the opposition and he makes comments about this
Speaker 7: and about this a Liberal Party.
Speaker 1: Colleague in intellectually bankrupt and mature cruel.
Speaker 7: I mean, she's able to campaign and talk about whatever
Speaker 7: issues she's want, she's an MP. But for him to
Speaker 7: use the Nazi word, it was just disgusting. And it's
Speaker 7: good that he's you know.
Speaker 4: I don't believe they haven't kicked it.
Speaker 7: Well he's refusing to resign, of course, but I mean,
Speaker 7: would you vote for him again in the next st election?
Speaker 4: Absolutely not. There's no integrity there.
Speaker 1: I mean, James, let's bring you in because this issue
Speaker 1: obviously is a political issue. But I do strongly think
Speaker 1: that the media played a role in this, and a
Speaker 1: very deceptive role some outlets and the way that they
Speaker 1: amplified that message. What do you think do you think
Speaker 1: there's been enough accountability there?
Speaker 10: I just think that, yeah, as we say, the word
Speaker 10: Nazi is just such a go to insult to discredit
Speaker 10: itself one and it loses a lack of like the
Speaker 10: absolute power that that word should have when describing someone.
Speaker 10: And yeah, if this is something that says to the
Speaker 10: media eight just because you disagree with them doesn't make
Speaker 10: them a Nazi, doesn't make them a fascist, doesn't make
Speaker 10: them a communist, then we're.
Speaker 5: Getting to a good place in the world.
Speaker 10: But to John Pursuto, because this is a political point,
Speaker 10: I mean, he put all of his chips into the
Speaker 10: middle of the table when he went on more redeeming
Speaker 10: like that, he said, this is someone I want to
Speaker 10: get rid of. I know the parties against it, but
Speaker 10: here is my big play. He's now completely lost. I
Speaker 10: don't see how he can hold on. I don't think
Speaker 10: people want to vote for him, even though in polling
Speaker 10: the coalition is ahead.
Speaker 5: Because labor is that toxic. They need to get rid.
Speaker 10: Of and replace him with someone that can people can
Speaker 10: vote for, and we might actually have a Victorian Liberal government,
Speaker 10: which no one would have thought of five years ago.
Speaker 1: Yeah, couldn't agree more. Let's move on there now. Stories
Speaker 1: of the week, what do you have for us?
Speaker 7: I was interested in the story about the McDonald's employee,
Speaker 7: the one who found Luigi Mangioni in the restaurant, the
Speaker 7: McDonald's restaurant in Pennsylvania, who actually phoned in nine one
Speaker 7: one to say, I think we've actually found the man.
Speaker 7: Apparently he's in line for a massive reward. I think
Speaker 7: it works out at about ninety five thousand dollars Australian. Wow,
Speaker 7: it's a massive reward. It's when I say here, we
Speaker 7: actually don't know whether who the identity of the McDonald's
Speaker 7: employee is. It could be a woman, it could be
Speaker 7: a man, or we just don't know. And that's a
Speaker 7: joint reward between the NYPD's crime stoppers and also the FBI,
Speaker 7: but it does.
Speaker 5: Depend on a conviction.
Speaker 7: Luigi has to be convicted in order for this employee.
Speaker 1: To get That's difficult.
Speaker 7: No, no, but I thought that was a great thing.
Speaker 7: I mean that you go to work just flip burgers
Speaker 7: and then the next thing you've found a suspect and
Speaker 7: you may be in line for a life change.
Speaker 1: Very strange that he's carrying all that stuff with him.
Speaker 7: Yeah, and in such a public place and men and
Speaker 7: McDonald's where people are going to be milling around and
Speaker 7: go yeah in a way, yeah, yeah, just.
Speaker 10: On that while he is heroic and the actions of
Speaker 10: speaking up and seeing what he saw. I can't believe
Speaker 10: that the McDonald's itself got review bombed by the internet.
Speaker 10: It's a place of snitches, they really, It's got yeah
Speaker 10: one star reviews like terrible McDonald's.
Speaker 1: Like the interest is weird defense for this killer. Yes,
Speaker 1: it's very cult around talents a show.
Speaker 10: Because I've got this whole thing about this that could
Speaker 10: go on forever. But in the interests of the producers,
Speaker 10: I will move on to my story of the week,
Speaker 10: which is the Queensland government has said that they're not
Speaker 10: they're banning any debate on abortion for the next parliament
Speaker 10: a couple of years, four years.
Speaker 5: And look, I'm.
Speaker 10: Someone that doesn't want to see the Catterparties reforms get through,
Speaker 10: but you can't ban elected representatives from debating something.
Speaker 5: We have enough.
Speaker 10: We don't have any good protections on freedom of speech
Speaker 10: in the public square for people to debate in society.
Speaker 10: But now we're seeing people that we elected to represent
Speaker 10: our interests being told they can't represent our interests on
Speaker 10: one particular issue because it's a thawn for the government.
Speaker 5: That's disgusting.
Speaker 1: James Bolt, Luise Roberts, thank you so much for joining me.
Speaker 1: That's all the time that we have for tonight. Thank
Speaker 1: you for joining us the media show. We'll be back
Speaker 1: next year.