Speaker 1: This is the Media Show with Jack Outing, Hello and
Speaker 1: welcome to the Media Show. Tonight, we discuss a scandal
Speaker 1: engulfing a famous nine journalist. We'll get into the media's
Speaker 1: reaction to the Trump tariffs, and we sit down with
Speaker 1: skynews dot com dot au media watchdog columns Jared Henderson,
Speaker 1: who will unpack the left wing dominance of guests on
Speaker 1: one of the ABC's most important programs. But first, the
Speaker 1: campaign is in full swing and sometimes it is the
Speaker 1: most trivial of moments which are the most telling.
Speaker 2: Photos with everyone.
Speaker 1: Okay, it was an awkward moment, but not one any
Speaker 1: reasonable onlooker would be grudge Alban Easy. We've all tripped before,
Speaker 1: and although it was awkward that this moment was captured
Speaker 1: on camera, it wasn't really a big deal.
Speaker 3: That's why the Prime.
Speaker 1: Minister's response to the fall at an Aba radio interview
Speaker 1: was simply bizarre.
Speaker 4: Prime Minister, we saw that you fell from the stage
Speaker 4: and says not this afternoon, Are you okay?
Speaker 2: No, I stepped back one step.
Speaker 3: I didn't fall off the stage.
Speaker 4: It looked like it looks like you went down. I'm
Speaker 4: glad to hear you're okay, though, Thank you very much.
Speaker 3: Just one leg went down, but I was sweet.
Speaker 1: Now, it is true that he didn't completely fall off
Speaker 1: the stage, and perhaps the ABC journalist muddled the question
Speaker 1: a little bit by phrasing it that way, but to
Speaker 1: suggest that it was just the PM only taking a
Speaker 1: single backward step is just strange. We all saw it.
Speaker 1: He definitely fell down and had to be helped up.
Speaker 1: It isn't a big deal other than the fact that
Speaker 1: the PM felt the need to downplay it and tell
Speaker 1: you what you saw was not reality. Now, credibility will
Speaker 1: be everything this election. Albanezi still has not apologized for
Speaker 1: taking flawed economic modeling to the last election, which falsely
Speaker 1: claimed that you would be paying less on your power bills.
Speaker 1: If he cannot be honest about a simple and harmless fall,
Speaker 1: then what confidence can anyone have when it comes to
Speaker 1: the big issues. Well, joining me now to discuss as
Speaker 1: the panel the Daily Telegraph columnist Tim Blair and Sky
Speaker 1: News contributor Louise Roberts. Louise utterly bizarre interview on the
Speaker 1: ABC and I felt a little bit sorry for the
Speaker 1: presenter because the presenter seemed to just be reaching out
Speaker 1: and saying, essentially, are you okay, we saw you fell,
Speaker 1: and there was a denial of.
Speaker 3: That very clear reality.
Speaker 5: I found a very strange thing to correct the ABC
Speaker 5: host on as well, and we all know what we saw.
Speaker 5: He clearly came off the stage, whether he tumbled or
Speaker 5: took a step back, whatever he did. When you watched
Speaker 5: that footage of the Prime Minister, you actually felt sorry
Speaker 5: for him. I mean, because he was politely maneuvering his
Speaker 5: way behind the two union reps for a photograph. He
Speaker 5: didn't sort of say to them get out of the
Speaker 5: way in any sort of imperious manner, and then he
Speaker 5: slipped off the stage. So I think, why even bother
Speaker 5: correcting it? But was he concerned that it was going
Speaker 5: to become some kind of meme, that he'd be described
Speaker 5: as the fall guy or the stumbling PM or something
Speaker 5: like that. But arguably it's now become the story rather
Speaker 5: than something he could have just brushed off and said,
Speaker 5: I'm okay, it's fine.
Speaker 1: There could have been a very genuine fear tim of
Speaker 1: what the media might do with it. But to me
Speaker 1: it looked like this this autocratic control over language. It's
Speaker 1: not a fall down, it's a step back, And how
Speaker 1: dare you phrase it in a manner that I don't like.
Speaker 1: I want it to be called a step down. So
Speaker 1: this is misinformation.
Speaker 2: Well, you know, who do we believe, the Prime Minister
Speaker 2: or our own lying eyes. I mean, it would be
Speaker 2: like me cam in right now that I'm not wearing
Speaker 2: a crappy five dollars shirt that I bought it a
Speaker 2: pederal station.
Speaker 3: It's a great everyone.
Speaker 2: The video is right there. But I think the obvious interview,
Speaker 2: as you pointed out, might have muffled or fundged the
Speaker 2: question a little bit. But I think the fault is
Speaker 2: more on the Prime Minister who came back with I
Speaker 2: didn't fall off the stage, which was that the ABC
Speaker 2: interviewer never said, simply said that you fell, and then
Speaker 2: it was redefined. It was like in our old players
Speaker 2: complaining after the video review has gone against them and
Speaker 2: we can all see what's going on and just to
Speaker 2: keep the sort of sports metaphor going on here. I
Speaker 2: think the case here with the Prime Minister. If Richie
Speaker 2: Benno was still with us, he'd say, I think the
Speaker 2: viewers at home can make up their own minds about
Speaker 2: that one.
Speaker 1: Yeah, we certainly can. It's a very easy one for
Speaker 1: us all to agree on, but moving on, one of
Speaker 1: Australia's most celebrated journalists has had his credibility shattered by
Speaker 1: an audio recording which is morphed into a complex court case.
Speaker 1: Nine reporter Nick McKenzie was the author of reports which
Speaker 1: accused veteran soldier Ben.
Speaker 3: Roberts Smith of war crimes.
Speaker 1: Now Robert Smith ended up losing that defamation case, but
Speaker 1: shocking audio recordings between McKenzie and a witness known as
Speaker 1: Person seventeen have sent the matter back to court. My
Speaker 1: colleague Shari Markson broke the story.
Speaker 6: It's a verdict. The app gan veteran is appealing. But
Speaker 6: now secret audio recordings have come to light which casts
Speaker 6: doubt on the ethics and even the legal process of
Speaker 6: part of the case built against him.
Speaker 2: No, I shouldn't tell you. I've just preached my doing that.
Speaker 7: Like this is where like this.
Speaker 8: Is from toples.
Speaker 6: An explosive recording has caught nine Star reporter Nick McKenzie
Speaker 6: claiming he'd engaged in unethical behavior during their famous war
Speaker 6: crime case.
Speaker 1: The statement about breaching his ethics relates to McKenzie claiming
Speaker 1: that he should not have been disclosing certain information to
Speaker 1: Person seventeen, But there was a more insidious revelation in
Speaker 1: the recordings which could impact the fresh legal challenge breaking.
Speaker 4: Us on his legaltected you.
Speaker 1: If McKenzie is to be believed, he and his legal
Speaker 1: team were fed privileged information by the ex wife of
Speaker 1: Ben Roberts Smith and acted on that information during the
Speaker 1: defamation case. Now, this is obviously a huge story. But
Speaker 1: the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age, you know, the
Speaker 1: papers that carry that arrogant, self serving marketing label independent
Speaker 1: always well, they took three days to cover the story
Speaker 1: and in my opinion the coverage has been shallow and subpar,
Speaker 1: Independent until inconvenient, it seems. And the ABC was even worse,
Speaker 1: ignoring the story for even longer until they were dragged
Speaker 1: into covering it when the matter returned to court. Now,
Speaker 1: let's bring the panel back in. Now, LUI is quite
Speaker 1: a complex story, and putting aside the actual defamation case,
Speaker 1: the revelation of the recordings, surely there is merit in
Speaker 1: their existence. And it's a really bad look for the
Speaker 1: nine newspapers because it involves one of their own. It's unflattering,
Speaker 1: really bad look of them to just sit down on
Speaker 1: the story and lay dead.
Speaker 5: Yeah, when it's one of your own, you really can't
Speaker 5: run away from the story. You do have to cover it.
Speaker 5: You can be quite careful, hey do it, but you
Speaker 5: can't move away and leave yourself open to favoritism or
Speaker 5: perhaps not addressing.
Speaker 3: Any particularly your brain, your braining, the.
Speaker 5: Ethics independent always, et cetera, et cetera. I've found it
Speaker 5: quite challenging to listen to Nick talking about on that
Speaker 5: recording about his ethics, because he's obviously a very accomplished
Speaker 5: reporter and investigator and won many many awards, so I
Speaker 5: think this would be very hard for him to actually
Speaker 5: say those words as well. And Ben Roberts Smith, of course,
Speaker 5: was a massive scalp for him to get. I guess
Speaker 5: in context, what does it mean now legally going forward,
Speaker 5: and what will it do to perhaps restore the tarnished
Speaker 5: legacy of Ben Robert Smith as well, or if it
Speaker 5: will do anything and sort of legion to people who
Speaker 5: look at Nick Nick McKenzie's reporting and people who support
Speaker 5: him as well.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, Tim, his legal team is alleging that it
Speaker 1: amounts to a miscarriage of justice. I mean, essentially, if
Speaker 1: he is to be believed and the legal team is
Speaker 1: acting on what was known to be privileged information. That's
Speaker 1: not how cases should be should be run, and the
Speaker 1: core will have a huge problem with that.
Speaker 3: But putting all that aside, just the.
Speaker 1: Issue of some of these organizations who were just so
Speaker 1: loud and arrogant and bragging about this whole idea of independence.
Speaker 1: Whether you agree or disagree, it has to be a story.
Speaker 1: Surely everyone can agree on.
Speaker 2: That, absolutely. But I don't actually mind when media organizations
Speaker 2: or outlets take a little bit of time to make
Speaker 2: sure they've got the facts lined up. I don't mind
Speaker 2: seeing the occasional scoop. Even at our own newspaper, we
Speaker 2: will occasionally miss a scoop if we're checking things, which
Speaker 2: is how things should go, and we see too often
Speaker 2: people rushing in, getting it wrong and then having to recant.
Speaker 2: But in this case, the information was all out there,
Speaker 2: as you showed, Charlie had the recordings and three days
Speaker 2: to reflect and consider and suck your thumb about what
Speaker 2: this might mean. That's not especially in the Internet age.
Speaker 2: I mean, for a daily newspaper cycle in the old days,
Speaker 2: three days was an eternity. In the era of the internet,
Speaker 2: three days is it amounts to deliberate concealment.
Speaker 3: I think yeah, no, well said.
Speaker 1: Moving on now to the battle of debates as Australia's
Speaker 1: broadcasters all fight for a chance to host public events
Speaker 1: with key political figures, and I'm proud to say that
Speaker 1: Sky News was the first off the bat and our
Speaker 1: audience will get to see Albanezy and Dutton lockheads. On
Speaker 1: April eight, breaking news Sky News has secured the first
Speaker 1: leader's debate, and a few days after Sky announced the debate,
Speaker 1: the ABC revealed that it too would host a leader's
Speaker 1: debate a week after ours. But in their excitement, the
Speaker 1: ultimo obsessed and incompetent pr Flax of the ABC told
Speaker 1: a small lie ABC to host first free to air
Speaker 1: federal election leaders debate. The formal press release claimed. Now,
Speaker 1: we don't know if the ABC's over zealous approach to
Speaker 1: the truth was impacted by the fact that they have
Speaker 1: not managed to secure aus single federal election leader's debate
Speaker 1: in a studio since nineteen ninety two, but that isn't
Speaker 1: true because Sky News has multiple free to wear distribution points,
Speaker 1: including sky News Regional. We also will put the debate
Speaker 1: on smart TVs for free and broadcast for free across
Speaker 1: our radio products. But the people at the ABC who
Speaker 1: wrote the press release obviously have never left their elite
Speaker 1: enclaves to realize any of this. To them, if you
Speaker 1: live in the regions, you basically do not exist. They
Speaker 1: do not even tailor their press releases with you in mind,
Speaker 1: and this could explain why their regional coverage is becoming.
Speaker 3: Just so sad. Louis.
Speaker 1: It's this obsession, I think as well if you were
Speaker 1: guess working in pr or marketing to say first, we
Speaker 1: were first, we got it first, and quite clearly the
Speaker 1: news had been out, they weren't first, and they're trying
Speaker 1: to find these little qualifiers to come up for the
Speaker 1: fact that they weren't because they actually have a very
Speaker 1: shoddy record of being able to do this. And in
Speaker 1: my opinion, it's one of the very fundamental functions that
Speaker 1: the ABC should be providing as a debate, but they
Speaker 1: can't get off their seats to actually organize it, and
Speaker 1: they've really let people down by failing to do that
Speaker 1: for so many years.
Speaker 5: Well, they've got the second debate. I don't think we
Speaker 5: can deny that's the case, despite their claims, but as
Speaker 5: a national broadcaster they should be more focusing on the
Speaker 5: content of the debate and what the questions are they
Speaker 5: should be put to the Prime Minister and the Opposition
Speaker 5: leader as well ahead of the May three election, rather than,
Speaker 5: as you say, claiming to be first. And I wonder
Speaker 5: whether some of this too, is they're a little bit
Speaker 5: stung by Peter Dutton saying he's going to look very
Speaker 5: carefully at the funding that goes to the ABC. Yes,
Speaker 5: I'm wondering if maybe if that is part of it.
Speaker 5: They're sort of trying to just.
Speaker 1: Let me see how independent they are when the issue
Speaker 1: of their own funding comes up.
Speaker 3: Tim Blair, let's bring you in.
Speaker 1: Was it just an innocent mistake by an overzealos PR
Speaker 1: manager or was it a slight to those in the regents.
Speaker 2: It's a mistake, or it's incompetence. And when an organizations
Speaker 2: getting one billion dollars thrown and did every year, I
Speaker 2: think we can make up for our minds again about
Speaker 2: that one. But I've got the distinct advantage here of
Speaker 2: being in a Sky News regional area. And one of
Speaker 2: the remarkable things about being in a free to wear
Speaker 2: sky zone is that the people who used to watch
Speaker 2: the ABC all the time, or at least had the
Speaker 2: ABC on the as sort of a background thing all
Speaker 2: the time. You always the TV was always in the ABC.
Speaker 2: They've now all crossed over to Sky. Sky is massively
Speaker 2: popular in the regions. It's it's it has far less funding, obviously,
Speaker 2: but it has far more impact and it's talking to
Speaker 2: people in the regions. And I think that's another thing
Speaker 2: the ABC has got to look at when it talks
Speaker 2: to talks to people about its budget, is you know,
Speaker 2: it's got bureaus everywhere. I live round the corner in
Speaker 2: my town from an ABC bureau and no one's watching it.
Speaker 2: No one cares that the ABC may as well be
Speaker 2: invisible in the regions.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's a really good point, and there'll be a
Speaker 1: lot of people watching a show tonight from Sky News
Speaker 1: Reagion all and basically the ABC is left to deficit
Speaker 1: in the market for us to enter and that's great.
Speaker 1: It means we get to talk directly to people in
Speaker 1: the regions, but it is an issue for them. Picking
Speaker 1: up on what you were saying before though about the debate,
Speaker 1: I'd be interested what you think the big issues are
Speaker 1: that the ABC should and I guess what we should
Speaker 1: at sky be asking the leaders.
Speaker 5: About cost living Number one, undoubtedly the pain people feel
Speaker 5: every day filling their tanks up or cruising the supermarket ours,
Speaker 5: that is number one. That's what the ABC should be
Speaker 5: really analyzing and saying, what are the issues.
Speaker 3: What are the key things?
Speaker 5: How if you either of you ends up in the lodge,
Speaker 5: what are you going to do to fix it? There's
Speaker 5: no time for equivocating on this. We actually want to
Speaker 5: know the policy detail at this point. Energy of course,
Speaker 5: of what have we spoken about that, I mean that
Speaker 5: kind of fugazi of the two hundred and odd dollar
Speaker 5: reduction on the bill which never happened, of course, and
Speaker 5: our borders, our national boarders. People are very concerned about
Speaker 5: who's coming in and who's contributing to Australian society in
Speaker 5: the sort of realm of the tariff obviously situation with
Speaker 5: Trump too, so there's plenty for them to focus on.
Speaker 5: It's all hip hocket focused, I.
Speaker 1: Would argue definitely, and Tim, I think there is a
Speaker 1: danger for the for the ABC to do a debate
Speaker 1: from the perspective of someone from the inner city.
Speaker 2: Oh god, yeah, I mean it might be hilarious, but
Speaker 2: it's not going to be hugely relevant to a lot
Speaker 2: of the voters. I mean, you know, we've seen the
Speaker 2: Prime Minister arguing that it didn't fall well. An ABC
Speaker 2: in a city debate is more likely to be focused
Speaker 2: on men having babies. There's all manner of sort of,
Speaker 2: you know, issues of little concern that become massive concerns
Speaker 2: as soon as you start speaking of them within a
Speaker 2: certain building in ultimo. So yeah, good luck with that ABC.
Speaker 2: It'll be fun to watch.
Speaker 1: Tim Blair, Luise Roberts, thank you so much for joining us.
Speaker 1: We're going to take a quick break. But when we
Speaker 1: return inside the media's reactions to the Trump tariffs, Welcome
Speaker 1: back now. Donald Trump's Liberation Day has sent the market spirally,
Speaker 1: and the chaos has been seized on by his media adversaries.
Speaker 9: Our job right now as Americans is to do two things.
Speaker 9: Remember that we all have agency in this moment and
Speaker 9: in this situation, and to trust our eyes and ears
Speaker 9: and everything we are seeing and hearing. Twenty four hours
Speaker 9: after Donald Trump intentionally detonated a bomb in the heart
Speaker 9: of the most resilient economy on the planet, the sights
Speaker 9: and sounds of his failure to protect the American people's
Speaker 9: pocketbooks are everywhere. Tariffs on basically the entire world will
Speaker 9: do what for the economy.
Speaker 10: It will send it into reverse. Let there be no
Speaker 10: doubt about this. The President said today a whole load
Speaker 10: of economic nonsense, things that we know simply will not happen.
Speaker 3: And how did the White House respond.
Speaker 11: To anyone on Wall Street this morning? I would say
Speaker 11: trust in President Trump. This is a president who is
Speaker 11: doubling down on his proven economic formula. From his first term,
Speaker 11: we saw wages increase, we saw inflation come down, we
Speaker 11: had a Trump energy boom, we had the largest tax
Speaker 11: cuts in history. And that's exactly what the President intends
Speaker 11: to do following his historic announcement yesterday for reciprocal tariffs.
Speaker 11: It's the Golden Aid rule for the Golden Age of
Speaker 11: America and the United States of America is no longer
Speaker 11: going to be cheated by foreign nations around the world.
Speaker 11: And as the President declared yesterday, this is indeed a
Speaker 11: national emergency to discuss.
Speaker 1: I'm now joined by President of the Center of the
Speaker 1: American Experiment, John Heinderach, and John, thank you so much
Speaker 1: for joining me today. There is obviously a bit of
Speaker 1: chaos happening in the markets, But I kind of want
Speaker 1: to focus a little bit on the media reaction. Do
Speaker 1: you think it's been proportional. Do you think it's perhaps
Speaker 1: two short term or do you think it is an
Speaker 1: appropriate severe lashing of the President for his approach with tariffs.
Speaker 12: Well, their reaction to Trump's tariff announcement, both in the
Speaker 12: financial markets and in the press, has been unanimous. I mean,
Speaker 12: the Trump tariff policy is an incoherent mess, to be blunt,
Speaker 12: and it's easy to see why the stock markets have tumbled,
Speaker 12: and it's easy to see why the press has universally,
Speaker 12: almost universally condemned these tariffs. The only press outlet I've
Speaker 12: seen that has really tried to put a positive spin
Speaker 12: on Trump's announcement is Breitbart News. Other than that, I
Speaker 12: think the reception has been universally negative, and frankly for
Speaker 12: good reason. Trump calls these reciprocal tariffs, but they are not.
Speaker 12: Australia is a perfect example. Australia doesn't have any tariffs
Speaker 12: on goods coming in from the United States, and yet
Speaker 12: President Trump has slapped tariffs on Australia for no apparent reason,
Speaker 12: with no explanation. Soup really needs to straighten this out.
Speaker 12: This is very different from his first term. In twenty seventeen,
Speaker 12: he talked about tariffs. There was talking the news about
Speaker 12: a trade war, you know, but the trade war never happened,
Speaker 12: and Trump pretty rapidly renegotiated a couple of trade agreements
Speaker 12: in a way that I think was good and life
Speaker 12: went on. This time, he seems much more serious about
Speaker 12: a protectionist agenda.
Speaker 1: And John, what is the strategy from the Trump camp here?
Speaker 1: Are they planning on doing country by country renegotiations. We've
Speaker 1: already seen something happening in Argentina, But are they planning
Speaker 1: on going back through that list and recalibrating?
Speaker 3: Is it even possible or.
Speaker 1: Are we going to continue to see this very volatile
Speaker 1: reaction that spreads globally.
Speaker 12: Well, I wish I knew. You know, he's imposed tariffs
Speaker 12: on so many countries. You know, he can go through
Speaker 12: one by one, I guess, but it's going to take
Speaker 12: a while. I mean, I really don't know how he's
Speaker 12: going to back himself out of this mess. Hopefully he's
Speaker 12: going to go to major trading partners the EU for example,
Speaker 12: the UK, Australia, some of the Latin American countries and
Speaker 12: try to negotiate some more specific arrangements on a one
Speaker 12: by one basis. Some of what he's doing here makes sense.
Speaker 12: I mean, we really need to rid ourselves of this
Speaker 12: manufacturing dependence on China, especially for strategic materials, minerals and
Speaker 12: so on pharmaceuticals that we should not be relying on
Speaker 12: China for. But he's not using a targeted approach. He's
Speaker 12: using a shotgun approach.
Speaker 1: Well, let's move on now because President Vice President sorry
Speaker 1: JD Vance, had a message this week for all journalists
Speaker 1: writing sympathetic coverage of an illegal immigrant who was sent
Speaker 1: to the notorious Megaprison in El Salvador. The Associated Press
Speaker 1: reports outrage grows of a Maryland man's mistaken deportation to
Speaker 1: El Salva prison, and CNN reports.
Speaker 13: People were sent to this El Salvador in prison who
Speaker 13: shouldn't have been there to begin with, and in this case,
Speaker 13: Immigration and Customs Enforcement is saying very bluntly that this
Speaker 13: was due to an administrative error with this Salvadoran national
Speaker 13: in particular. Now a little bit of background as to
Speaker 13: who this is. His name is Guidmar Abdrigo Garcia. He's
Speaker 13: a Salvadoran national and crossed into the US around twenty eleven.
Speaker 13: His first brush with law enforcement appears to be in
Speaker 13: twenty nineteen, when he was detained along with a group
Speaker 13: of men who were loitering around a Maryland home depot,
Speaker 13: and the local police department deemed that he was a
Speaker 13: member of MS thirteen, saying or arguing that it was
Speaker 13: due to his attire and a confidential informant.
Speaker 3: JD.
Speaker 1: Vance responded to the criticism, arguing that the reasoning ultimately
Speaker 1: does not matter. He was there illegally, so he was deported.
Speaker 7: Back in twenty nineteen, an immigration judge looked at all
Speaker 7: the evidence, looked at all the data, and concluded that
Speaker 7: this allegedly innocent person that we sent to El Salvador
Speaker 7: was actually a member of an MS thirteen gang. He
Speaker 7: had also committed some traffic violations. He had not shown
Speaker 7: up for some court dates. This is not exactly Father of.
Speaker 3: The Year here.
Speaker 7: This is a person that we don't think should be
Speaker 7: in our country. Here's the most important point. Though lawrence is, whatever,
Speaker 7: the argument is, whatever the justification is, no one doubts,
Speaker 7: not even the crazy left wing media criticized the idea
Speaker 7: that we could deport this person they just took issue
Speaker 7: with the reasoning for why we deported this person.
Speaker 1: Well, John, I'd love to get your thoughts on this story.
Speaker 1: It's a big story that's kind of senting in on
Speaker 1: this one specific cas as potentially being a clerical or
Speaker 1: administrative era.
Speaker 3: But is the.
Speaker 1: Media out of touch with the public's expectation that essentially
Speaker 1: Donald Trump was elected to fix the illegal immigration issue there?
Speaker 1: Do they really care whether he was the gang member
Speaker 1: or not?
Speaker 12: I don't think so. This is a great example of
Speaker 12: where the Democratic Party and its minions in the press
Speaker 12: have seized the wrong end of an issue where the
Speaker 12: overwhelming majority are on President Trump's side. This man is
Speaker 12: an illegal immigrant. Joe Biden enticed ten million illegals to
Speaker 12: come across the border, and Donald Trump is trying to
Speaker 12: get as many as possible of these illegal immigrants out
Speaker 12: of the country, starting with the ones who are most dangerous.
Speaker 12: But the reality is they all need to go and look,
Speaker 12: when you admit ten million illegal immigrants into the country,
Speaker 12: they are not all going to get a two week trial, okay.
Speaker 12: And the idea that we got to go on and
Speaker 12: on and on with due process for everyone of these
Speaker 12: millions of illegal immigrants is ridiculous, and the American people
Speaker 12: don't buy it.
Speaker 1: Well said, We're moving on now because an interview with
Speaker 1: CBS has gone viral for all the wrong reasons, with
Speaker 1: journalist Leslie Stahl appearing to challenge a hostage of Hamas
Speaker 1: over the fact that he was starved while kept in captivity.
Speaker 8: The terrorists became very mean and very cruel and violent,
Speaker 8: more so, much more so. They were beating me and
Speaker 8: starving me.
Speaker 1: Do you think they starved you or they just didn't
Speaker 1: have food.
Speaker 8: No, I think they starved me, and they would often
Speaker 8: eat in front of me and not offer me food.
Speaker 1: Did they let you take showers? They literally ate food
Speaker 1: in front of him, and she interrupts him basically to
Speaker 1: allege that he is either lying or mistaken, and in reality,
Speaker 1: it was Israel that was starving everyone, and the poor
Speaker 1: terrorists simply had no food to eat themselves. Let's bring
Speaker 1: John back in now, John. It was a very short moment,
Speaker 1: and if you blinked, you would have missed it. But
Speaker 1: when I was watching that, it seemed symbolic of this
Speaker 1: this subtle bias, this anti Israel bias. Challenging someone that's
Speaker 1: gone through one of the most heinous experiences can go through,
Speaker 1: challenge them in a way that I do think was
Speaker 1: rather unfair, rather than just letting them tell their story
Speaker 1: trying to pick holes in it.
Speaker 3: What are your thoughts, Well.
Speaker 12: This is the myth of the famine and Gaza that
Speaker 12: the press perpetrated. It was a total lie. But what
Speaker 12: we see here is part of the broader effort to
Speaker 12: normalize the savages of Hamas. These people are brutal, they
Speaker 12: are inhuman, they are monsters, and the press, once we
Speaker 12: got past the horrors of October seven, it's like, well,
Speaker 12: let's put that behind us now and forget about it
Speaker 12: and treat hamas just kind of like a normal political party.
Speaker 12: We've seen that over and over again in the United States,
Speaker 12: and frankly it's despicable.
Speaker 1: Well, moving on now, because MSNBC has released a new
Speaker 1: commercial spooking they're right to say whatever nonsense they want.
Speaker 14: Congress shall make no law respecting an establ plishment of religion,
Speaker 14: or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
Speaker 7: Or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press,
Speaker 7: or the rate of.
Speaker 2: The people peaceably to assemble.
Speaker 6: And to petition the Governor for a redress of grievances.
Speaker 1: Ah, So MSNBC loves the First Amendment, now, gotcha. During
Speaker 1: the pandemic, left wing journalists were the most censorious voices
Speaker 1: of all. But as soon as they've got their villain
Speaker 1: and their target, they suddenly believe in free speech again.
Speaker 1: Let's bring John back in now, John that ad I
Speaker 1: love it. I love MSNBC because it's just unlimited content
Speaker 1: for me. But you've got this self indulgent, this black
Speaker 1: and white self indulgent with this beautiful music coming over,
Speaker 1: as if they alone are holding back the whole of mega,
Speaker 1: they alone are going to save America.
Speaker 3: It's just it for me.
Speaker 1: These are people who are not free speech advocates. To
Speaker 1: do an entire marketing campaign on free speech is so ludicrous.
Speaker 12: Well, let's insert MSNBC is in favor of free speech,
Speaker 12: except of course, when it counts. Whenever there's a real
Speaker 12: free speech issue, they are on the other side. So
Speaker 12: who is trying to suppress the evidence of Joe Biden's
Speaker 12: corruption that was preserved on his son's laptop. MSNBC squelch
Speaker 12: anybody who even mentions it during COVID. Who was it
Speaker 12: who was trying to suppress dissenting voice, voices who turned
Speaker 12: out to be right about the stupidity, frankly, of the
Speaker 12: COVID shutdowns and the genesis of the virus and so forth.
Speaker 12: And who is it who has cheered on the Democratic
Speaker 12: Party's efforts to silence Donald Trump, their number one political
Speaker 12: opponent by actually having him criminal, prosecuted and thrown in prison.
Speaker 12: MSNBG NBC cheered on that suppression of Donald Trump's speech
Speaker 12: every step of the way. So this commercial is a joke.
Speaker 1: And John, do you think that when the average person,
Speaker 1: so you and I perhaps we maybe consume a little
Speaker 1: bit more media than the average person, and maybe we're
Speaker 1: across this, But.
Speaker 3: Does a campaign like that, does that permeate?
Speaker 1: Does that actually break through to their audience, because we
Speaker 1: know that they're having a problem ever since the result
Speaker 1: of the last election. Viewers are dropping off based on
Speaker 1: the rhetoric you had basically Joy read before she was
Speaker 1: put out to pasture. She was alleging that Trump, she
Speaker 1: was saying he was Mussolini and Hitler and everything. And
Speaker 1: if that's their idea of the First Amendment, fair enough,
Speaker 1: But they're a commercial channel. Does this work as a
Speaker 1: marketing campaign?
Speaker 12: Honestly, I'm not sure who is still watching MSNBC. I mean,
Speaker 12: their audience has got to be a small niche far
Speaker 12: left segment of the American pe people. And ironically, I'm
Speaker 12: not sure how much of their audience believes in the
Speaker 12: First Amendment to begin with.
Speaker 3: This is a really.
Speaker 12: Factive marketing tool to try to rally the evidence that
Speaker 12: is still watching that the audience that is still watching
Speaker 12: that network.
Speaker 1: I think more people watch MSNBC on this program than
Speaker 1: on their own channels. But John Heindurek, thank you so
Speaker 1: much for joining us. It was a pleasure a quick break.
Speaker 1: But when we return, Jared Henderson takes us through his
Speaker 1: list of gripes with the ABC welcome back joining me now,
Speaker 1: as he does each and every week. Is Sky News
Speaker 1: Australia's media watchdog columnist Jared Henderson. Jared, thank you so
Speaker 1: much for joining us. Now you have been at it
Speaker 1: again and you've found the most ridiculous Although I think
Speaker 1: it's very telling ABC commercial and we're going to show
Speaker 1: you just before we talk about it.
Speaker 5: To talk about to ask important questions.
Speaker 1: Does our current political system reward narcissess.
Speaker 10: Who decides what's true and what is not To.
Speaker 1: Challenge power mental health care in this country.
Speaker 3: Doesn't that EQUI Oh.
Speaker 1: Yeah, now we've noticed something in that. Can you give
Speaker 1: us a little bit of an insight.
Speaker 15: Well, there are two labor politicians and their clip, and
Speaker 15: there's one former liberal politician, George Branders. But there are
Speaker 15: two teal Independence Monique Ryan from Melbourne and Zoe Daniel
Speaker 15: from Melbourne. Patricia cavellis the presenter. She was in Melbourne
Speaker 15: at the time I think now, or she's based in Melbourne,
Speaker 15: so that when he got an example there of the
Speaker 15: Melbourne left of different kinds of it. So what you've
Speaker 15: got is you've probably got fourteen Independence in the Lower
Speaker 15: House plus the Greens, and you've got one hundred and
Speaker 15: fifty people in the lower House. But suddenly the two
Speaker 15: independents Teals, who are most at risk, along with k
Speaker 15: Cheney and Perth, Ryan and miss Daniel suddenly get on
Speaker 15: this advertisement for Q and A, which goes all over
Speaker 15: the country and which would be widely watching the electorates
Speaker 15: they're struggling to hold, which is Goldstein and Melbourne and
Speaker 15: Key Young and Melbourne.
Speaker 3: In the middle of an election campaign.
Speaker 15: So that's just free advertising. Now they could have chosen
Speaker 15: anyone to plug that, but they chose those two people. Now,
Speaker 15: if I were Miss Daniel or doctor Ryan, shall we say.
Speaker 3: Well, you will send you a legal letter, right?
Speaker 15: I mean, I would be delighted with that because it's
Speaker 15: not simply an ad, because it shows what you're doing.
Speaker 3: It's sympathetic, professionalizing.
Speaker 15: Professional makes you look interesting, and I don't. I mean,
Speaker 15: I think we're in one of these things of what
Speaker 15: a coincidence moment that had happened to two t I.
Speaker 1: Think the marketing team should have been far more careful
Speaker 1: than just to put a whole bunch of very left winging,
Speaker 1: left wing teals there to promote it. So you're not
Speaker 1: promoting just the show. You have to keep in mind
Speaker 1: you're an election campaign. You're using taxpayer dollars to promote politics,
Speaker 1: and it's their quotes and everything. But also it's not
Speaker 1: really the marketing team's fault because the only people that
Speaker 1: they tend to get on that show most of the
Speaker 1: time are left wing people. They've only got a certain
Speaker 1: pull to pull rabs fraud.
Speaker 15: It's like the rest of the ABC is basically a
Speaker 15: conservative free zone. Now, in the last couple of weeks,
Speaker 15: you had three the previous week you had three right
Speaker 15: of center to three left of center to one sort
Speaker 15: of vaguely right of center, and last Monday you had
Speaker 15: two left of center to one right of center. So
Speaker 15: the panels are massively imbalanced. And if you add Patricia
Speaker 15: Cavellis in, I mean she's a journalist on the left,
Speaker 15: So I mean basically they're sort of a lefty lovey
Speaker 15: get together.
Speaker 3: And Zobe Daniels is one of them, or she's one of.
Speaker 15: Them, and she used to be at the ABC. I mean,
Speaker 15: so she's getting I mean, I'm not saying she is involved,
Speaker 15: but her former mates of the ABC are putting her
Speaker 15: on and then she gets in the promo as well.
Speaker 1: Now let's talk Nick McKenzie, because the audio that Shari
Speaker 1: Marks had discovered, You've got a point that you want
Speaker 1: to listen to.
Speaker 3: So let's let's have a listen to this audio.
Speaker 15: I shouldn't tell you, I just ap preaching ethics doing
Speaker 15: that like this is where like this is pably.
Speaker 2: If they knew that impet to you that.
Speaker 13: I can.
Speaker 1: And Jared, the language that is using is very robust,
Speaker 1: and it's maybe being a point that has slipped a
Speaker 1: lot of people's attention.
Speaker 15: Well, it is a snippet from a longer conversation and
Speaker 15: he's talking as a as a lytic and in a sense.
Speaker 15: But you've got mister McKenzie talking to a woman he
Speaker 15: wouldn't know very well, who is not is. We don't
Speaker 15: know exactly her age. I imagine she's probably in her
Speaker 15: thirties or forties or something like that. And he's using
Speaker 15: language that you wouldn't expect people to use to people
Speaker 15: they don't know, and you wouldn't even want them to
Speaker 15: use it around the office because language doesn't offend some people,
Speaker 15: but it does offend other people, and you've got to
Speaker 15: be careful about doing it. So this seemed to me
Speaker 15: to be a very unprofessional approach for someone who is
Speaker 15: presented by nine as one of Australia's leading journalists. Now
Speaker 15: I'm not sure that all our leading journalists speak like
Speaker 15: that in private, and I just think a lot of
Speaker 15: people had missed it because they were focusing on what
Speaker 15: was being said. But I was interested in how it
Speaker 15: was said because it just seems to me, look, I mean,
Speaker 15: maybe he should go to the Sydney industry with onsor
Speaker 15: courtesy classes and he should need to get to a
Speaker 15: courtesy class.
Speaker 1: Again, it is the marketing behind it and without being
Speaker 1: too puritanical with it. And obviously everyone uses robust language,
Speaker 1: ye private and he didn't know he was being recorded presumably.
Speaker 3: No, he didn't.
Speaker 1: But in this situation, it shatters this image that nine
Speaker 1: wanted to build for this clean cut by the book
Speaker 1: Investigative Journalist. It really has damaged that whole image.
Speaker 15: And there is a big difference between using language to
Speaker 15: someone that you know because you probably know how they
Speaker 15: react to language, to someone that you don't know or
Speaker 15: don't know very well. I mean, it's quite a different thing.
Speaker 15: It's quite confronting when I listened to it on Sherry
Speaker 15: Markson's program, That's what surprised me. Now that rare are
Speaker 15: other issues, but that's what surprised me.
Speaker 1: And we've got one more grab it to listen to
Speaker 1: and it's from the Climate Climate think tank Rewiring Australia
Speaker 1: on the ABC.
Speaker 3: Let's have a quick listen.
Speaker 14: The coalitions pledged a gas reservation policy again without analysis
Speaker 14: or policy detail. What's your view on that.
Speaker 3: I think you've said it exactly right. This is without
Speaker 3: analysis or policy detail.
Speaker 14: When I do the analysis, it's a bad idea.
Speaker 3: We don't need it.
Speaker 14: Dare I ask you about the coalition's nuclear energy proposal, Oh,
Speaker 14: it will be too extensive and too late.
Speaker 3: Jared, what did you pick up from that?
Speaker 8: Well?
Speaker 15: Saw Griffith is a climb as activist. So he goes
Speaker 15: on the World Today with Andy Park, and Andy Park
Speaker 15: doesn't ask about his own opinions. He asks what he
Speaker 15: thinks of Peter Dutton in the opposition and surprise, surprise,
Speaker 15: so Griffith doesn't think at all. So what I mean,
Speaker 15: in a court of or, they'd be throwing out I mean,
Speaker 15: that'd be so obvious that even a sleeping judge would
Speaker 15: wake to them. I mean, these are leading questions, begging
Speaker 15: an answer, and you get the answer that you want,
Speaker 15: and then you go on and ask another question the
Speaker 15: same way. I mean, it's grossly unprofessional. He should have
Speaker 15: been asking Sairl Griffin about his own views, but to
Speaker 15: ask him to talk about the Coalition or Peter Dutton's views.
Speaker 15: When you know saw Griffin's views, you know that he's
Speaker 15: going to bag them, which it's.
Speaker 1: Not probatent, and the way he's doing it it's bleeding
Speaker 1: the witness. As you've mentioned, essentially, he even phrased it,
Speaker 1: dare I ask about this because he knows? You say
Speaker 1: Dare I ask because you know that you're about to
Speaker 1: elicit a negative response. Now, that's all the time we
Speaker 1: have for this evening, but up next is Newsnight.