Speaker 1: This is the Media Show with Jack.
Speaker 2: Outing, Hello and welcome to the Media Show. Tonight we'll
Speaker 2: take a look at the toxic culture inside the Guardian
Speaker 2: Australia's newsroom, a war between Anthony Albanesi and Elon Musk,
Speaker 2: and towards the end of the show, we're going to
Speaker 2: sit down with media watchdog columnist Jared Henderson to keep
Speaker 2: an eye on the ABC. But first, everyone will have
Speaker 2: seen the heartbreaking footage of the bushfires in California, but
Speaker 2: not everyone will have taken the time to read about
Speaker 2: the widespread criticism of California's leadership, which some have argued
Speaker 2: have made the fires more difficult to contain. Now, one
Speaker 2: marketing clip which has gone viral does a pretty good
Speaker 2: job of summarizing the obsession with identity politics which is
Speaker 2: infected leadership of critical emergency services.
Speaker 3: You want to see somebody that responds to your house,
Speaker 3: your emergency, whether it's a medical call or a fire call,
Speaker 3: that looks like you. It gives that person a little
Speaker 3: bit more ease knowing that somebody might understand their situation better.
Speaker 3: Is she strong enough to do this? Or you couldn't
Speaker 3: carry my husband out of a fire, which my response
Speaker 3: is he got himself from the wrong place if I
Speaker 3: have to carry him out.
Speaker 1: Of a fire.
Speaker 2: This woman is a Los Angeles Fire Department diversity chief,
Speaker 2: and she is making the argument that it is your
Speaker 2: fault if you are trapped in a burning building and
Speaker 2: a female firefighter isn't strong enough to save you. Now,
Speaker 2: that's pretty disgusting and reprehensible commentary. It isn't very inclusive either,
Speaker 2: as people with disabilities can be caught in fires, and
Speaker 2: we know the fires are so fast moving in California
Speaker 2: that simply anyone can get caught out. And this is
Speaker 2: what their marketing team proudly published as well. It's their culture,
Speaker 2: an aggressive victim blaming culture of identity politics above all.
Speaker 2: And of course this rubbish was called out by many people,
Speaker 2: including Elon Musk, which prompted media organizations like The Sydney
Speaker 2: Morning Herald to criticize him. Reporter Bianka Hall writes disinformation
Speaker 2: rains as bushfires dev state California, and speaking about Musks,
Speaker 2: she alleged diversity equity and inclusion DEI investments and hiring
Speaker 2: processes he has repeatedly said have caused deaths that could
Speaker 2: otherwise have been avoided if more white men were fighting
Speaker 2: the fires. Now, he actually never explicitly said that, and
Speaker 2: if he had, she would have quoted directly what he said.
Speaker 2: She just verbaled him. And it is false, And it's
Speaker 2: an effort to straw man a broader and legitimate argument
Speaker 2: about these insane priorities and racist hiring practices at some
Speaker 2: emergency services. In fact, the reporting was so unhinged that
Speaker 2: one of their own writers called it out in a
Speaker 2: tweet which has since been deleted SMH. Columbus Parnell McGinnis
Speaker 2: took aim at her own Masterthead for basically misrepresenting Musk's position.
Speaker 2: She said that credible outlets make themselves less credible by
Speaker 2: making up misinformation about misinformation. Musks suggested that fire services
Speaker 2: should not preference DEI hires over people who could do
Speaker 2: the job, a subtle but important difference to what is
Speaker 2: implied here. Now, either of these reporters such as Bianker Hall,
Speaker 2: are so stupid that they don't understand the argument, or
Speaker 2: they simply don't care, And for the record, if it
Speaker 2: is the latter, then that is a real case of disinformation.
Speaker 1: Well.
Speaker 2: Joining me on the show this week is the Australians
Speaker 2: Darren Davidson and Sky News contributor Louise Roberts. Louise, what
Speaker 2: we saw in that clip from this very senior fire
Speaker 2: chief telling people that if they're the ones trapped in
Speaker 2: the building, well they've done the wrong thing. They're the
Speaker 2: ones who've got themselves in the wrong spot. I find
Speaker 2: it astonishing that journalists are somehow defending that and also
Speaker 2: trying to make the argument that it's almost immoral to
Speaker 2: point out that that's just clearly wrong.
Speaker 4: Well, I do wonder what to Christine Larson's sort of
Speaker 4: position is It is she somehow all by extension blaming
Speaker 4: the good people of Los Angeles for the current fire situation,
Speaker 4: the people who've lost their homes and the businesses have
Speaker 4: burned to the ground, and the absolute devastation, the multi
Speaker 4: billion dollars of damage that's been caused. I do find
Speaker 4: that when Parnell sort of called out her own paper
Speaker 4: for whitewashing the issue and sort of somehow suggesting that
Speaker 4: Musk had made this comment saying there should be more
Speaker 4: white men being hired rather than more diverse candidates. You know,
Speaker 4: people are really recognized DEI as being a major factor
Speaker 4: in why these fires are not under control and why
Speaker 4: the priority has been for training firefighters and not enough
Speaker 4: water in the fire hydrants. I mean, from my point
Speaker 4: of view, it's a campaign, a three year campaign within
Speaker 4: that fire department, which should.
Speaker 1: Be stopped now.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And I think there's Darren, Let's bring you in here,
Speaker 2: because there's clearly a cultural element in the fire department
Speaker 2: as well, which is important to talk about, because it's
Speaker 2: not like journalists went sorting through archive footage and this
Speaker 2: was leaked from their internal serve internal training material. This
Speaker 2: was published by the fire servers as part of this
Speaker 2: identity politics propaganda push what they do when they're all
Speaker 2: trying to be pro identity politics, they've published this commentary
Speaker 2: out there. It's come back to bite them. Obviously it
Speaker 2: was an older video, but it goes to show how
Speaker 2: they think about it.
Speaker 1: It does.
Speaker 5: I actually lived in the area from twenty twenty one
Speaker 5: until twenty twenty two where the fires are happening right now.
Speaker 5: My son was born there, so I had a very
Speaker 5: good exposure to the way that local resources are managed.
Speaker 5: And I think a lot of the commentary in some
Speaker 5: of the commentary referenced, it's just a clear attempt to
Speaker 5: distract from the failure of state and local government to
Speaker 5: contain fires that often accompany the Santa and A fires,
Speaker 5: which are part of the climate in that region. Look,
Speaker 5: no question, human activity impacts climate, but you often have
Speaker 5: dry season following wet seasons. That's very very common. That's
Speaker 5: been happening in California for hundreds of years. What's actually
Speaker 5: happened here is that Gavin Newsom and the Democrats have
Speaker 5: mismanaged local resources. They've underinvested in water storage and land management.
Speaker 5: If you look at the federal budget the state budget
Speaker 5: for California coming up, they've slashed resource management for Cow
Speaker 5: Fire by half, which is a huge, huge reduction, and
Speaker 5: that's why these fires are happening. It's very very sad
Speaker 5: someone that lived there. It's actually devastating to see what's
Speaker 5: happening to those people's homes and those community communities which
Speaker 5: actually devastated. And I really do hope and we see
Speaker 5: some a change in how those local resources are managed
Speaker 5: and how the state is led by Gavin Newsom, who
Speaker 5: is an absolute he's a disaster. And we've seen this
Speaker 5: around the US in recent years, and it's one of
Speaker 5: the reasons why Trump's back in the White House. Which
Speaker 5: is that a lot of these cities have been really,
Speaker 5: really grossly mismanaged at the state on local level in
Speaker 5: somes of resourcing.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well said, well, let's move on, because as we
Speaker 2: go to air tonight, the world was still waiting for
Speaker 2: confirmation of a ceasefire deal in Gaza which would.
Speaker 1: See the release of hostages.
Speaker 2: Now it is expected to be formalized this weekend, and
Speaker 2: the good news has led to both sides of politics
Speaker 2: taking credit. Both Joe Biden and Donald Trump claimed credit
Speaker 2: for the deal because both parties were involved, and for
Speaker 2: the most part, the media coverage around this was fair.
Speaker 2: The New York Times called it an extraordinary act of
Speaker 2: collaboration between outgoing and incoming presidents. Biden and Trump defy
Speaker 2: the history of animosity to seal Gaza ceasefire. The two
Speaker 2: presidents directed their advisors to work together to push Israel
Speaker 2: and Hamas over the line for an agreement to halt
Speaker 2: the fighting that has ravaged Gaza and release hostages who
Speaker 2: have been held there for fifteen months, and Biden himself
Speaker 2: explained this for reporters pretty clearly at the press conference.
Speaker 6: This deal was developed and negotiated under my administration, but
Speaker 6: terms will be implemented for the most part by the
Speaker 6: next administration. In these past few days, we've been speaking
Speaker 6: as one team.
Speaker 2: But just one minute after those comments, Biden went to
Speaker 2: turn around and he was baited by a reporter.
Speaker 5: Thank you looks.
Speaker 1: Credit for this, mister President?
Speaker 7: You or child?
Speaker 6: Is that a job? Oh? Thank you.
Speaker 2: Media pundits and so called esque experts will continue debating
Speaker 2: who should be praised for the deal if it goes ahead.
Speaker 2: But over at MSNBC, the conspiracy started to festa. It
Speaker 2: could not possibly be that Trump did something good. Host
Speaker 2: Joy Reid had a different theory.
Speaker 8: And Prime Minister Benjamin Netsanyahu has made it no secret
Speaker 8: that he prefers Trump and wanted to deliver him a win.
Speaker 8: The Washington Post reporter that Israel would gift something to Trump,
Speaker 8: but it was believed to be a deal on Lebanon.
Speaker 2: This is supposed to be a legitimate news service, and
Speaker 2: Joy read is just making up theories that the entire
Speaker 2: war being halted was because of a secret deal between
Speaker 2: Israel and Trump. Well, Louise, those kind of conspiracy theories
Speaker 2: get very close to the Jews are controlling the media,
Speaker 2: and they're controlling the government.
Speaker 1: My problem with this.
Speaker 2: There's nothing of substance that she possibly could have other
Speaker 2: than reports that they've had conversations. Of course they're going
Speaker 2: to have conversations. He is the incoming president of the
Speaker 2: United States. They're going to be talking. But she's actually
Speaker 2: gone to air alleging that he has waited. So it's
Speaker 2: by the way that the onus is then on Israel.
Speaker 2: It's all Hermas was coming to the table, but Israel
Speaker 2: was waiting, and Nanayu was waiting to give Trump a
Speaker 2: good present for him to start.
Speaker 1: It's so absurd, it's absurd.
Speaker 4: It's actually offensive to Jewish people somehow, allowing hostages to
Speaker 4: remain in those times and suffer while a little tidy
Speaker 4: deal was done to make Trump look good once he
Speaker 4: gets into the White House. And also the way that
Speaker 4: Biden sort of throws that nasty comment over his shoulder,
Speaker 4: you're joking, even in a situation where he's leaving the
Speaker 4: Oval office, he cannot give Trump any sort of, you know,
Speaker 4: credit for pushing this deal. In fact, it was Trump's
Speaker 4: Middle East envoy who actually got Benjamin mcnawhu to actually
Speaker 4: agree to the deal, So there was no harm in
Speaker 4: Biden actually saying yes, it was truly bipartisan approach and
Speaker 4: thank you mister Trump for your help. But he couldn't
Speaker 4: bring himself to do it, which says everything to me
Speaker 4: about his administration and leaning towards a very left conspiracy theory.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and I would have liked to see both leaders. Actually,
Speaker 2: you know, Darren, let's bring you in. I would have
Speaker 2: liked to see both leaders probably praise the other person
Speaker 2: because there were two parties involved in that. If it
Speaker 2: does go ahead, and it will be a wholly good
Speaker 2: thing for everyone involved. The other element to this story, though,
Speaker 2: is you've got these organizations. The left is very quick
Speaker 2: to talk about misinformation and regulating against this fake news,
Speaker 2: et cetera. They publish this absolute nonsense, CaAl conspiratorial. It's
Speaker 2: just conjecture about something they think Trump might have done.
Speaker 2: I think it's going to get much worse as he
Speaker 2: takes offers. What do you make of it in this situation.
Speaker 5: I agree Biden's touting his record on foreign policies he
Speaker 5: leaves office, but it's it's a really questionable track record
Speaker 5: over the last four years. I mean, on Israel itself.
Speaker 5: He opposed nearly every single military decision that Israel made
Speaker 5: and it's really only Israel that's established de terrence against
Speaker 5: Iran in that region. You know that, I think the
Speaker 5: greatest failure of Biden's foreign policy is that so many
Speaker 5: adversaries around the world have kind of moved in to.
Speaker 1: Feel this vacuum.
Speaker 5: You know, we have we had so many conflicts around
Speaker 5: the world during during Biden's term. I find it really
Speaker 5: hard to buy into this attempt to kind of paint
Speaker 5: this picture of a really strong foreign policy record. I
Speaker 5: think it's quite the opposite. In fact, par securely in
Speaker 5: the Middle East.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's a really good point.
Speaker 2: And the other element to this is if it was
Speaker 2: all Biden, as his supporters are suggesting, then why didn't
Speaker 2: he do it six months ago? Why has it coincidentally
Speaker 2: taken up until he's about to take office.
Speaker 4: Interestingly though, that the New York Post did a great
Speaker 4: coverage of this, and they actually got some quotes sort
Speaker 4: of off the record from Biden's admin who said that
Speaker 4: Trump's influence was very important to actually securing this as well.
Speaker 4: So while everyone around him acknowledges it, he still wants
Speaker 4: to sort of take full credit for something, as you say,
Speaker 4: he could have done six months ago. And ended the
Speaker 4: suffering of many hostages.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and in Biden's scripted statement, he does actually reach
Speaker 2: out and say, you know, this was a team effort,
Speaker 2: so that there was a bit of bipartnersan.
Speaker 4: Commentary body language when he leaves elector and I think
Speaker 4: says it all.
Speaker 1: He was told he doesn't know what he's saying, you know,
Speaker 1: it doesn't know where he is.
Speaker 4: I don't think it's authentic. He's been told be magnanimous
Speaker 4: to mister Trump.
Speaker 2: But in his heart there's a script and then there's
Speaker 2: what he actually wants to say. But look, let's move on.
Speaker 2: Because Mark Zuckerberg has finally dismantled the corrupt and biased
Speaker 2: fact checking system which polices his platforms in the United States.
Speaker 2: He spent hours explaining the decision in a podcast with
Speaker 2: Joe Rogan.
Speaker 9: We tried to put in place, you know, a system
Speaker 9: that would deal with it, you know, and early on
Speaker 9: tried to basically make it so that it was really limited.
Speaker 9: We're like, all right, we're just gonna have the system
Speaker 9: where the these third party fact checkers and they can
Speaker 9: check the worst of the worst stuff, right, so things
Speaker 9: that are very clear hoaxes that there's like it's not like,
Speaker 9: like we're not parsing speech about whether something is slightly
Speaker 9: true or slightly false, like Earth is flat, you know,
Speaker 9: things like that. Right, So that was sort of the
Speaker 9: original intent we put in place the system, and it
Speaker 9: just sort of veered from there. I think to some
Speaker 9: degree it's because some of the people whose job is
Speaker 9: to do fact checking, a lot of their industry is
Speaker 9: focused on political fact checking, so they're just kind of
Speaker 9: veered in that direction, and we kept on trying to
Speaker 9: basically get it to be what we had originally intended,
Speaker 9: which is just you know, it's not the point is
Speaker 9: and to like judge people's opinions. It's to provide in
Speaker 9: this layer to kind of help fact check some of
Speaker 9: the stuff that seems the most extreme.
Speaker 1: But it just, you know, it was just.
Speaker 9: Never accepted by people broadly. I think people just felt
Speaker 9: like the fact checkers were too biased, not necessarily even
Speaker 9: so much and what they ruled, although sometimes I think
Speaker 9: people would disagree with that, a lot of the time,
Speaker 9: it was just what types of things they chose to
Speaker 9: even go in fact check in the.
Speaker 1: First time in the first place.
Speaker 2: Zuckerberg also shed light on how political censorship had become.
Speaker 2: He revealed when he pushed back against Joe Biden's team,
Speaker 2: his company started getting investigated.
Speaker 9: These people from the Biden administration would call up our
Speaker 9: team and like scream at them, and and it's like,
Speaker 9: these documents are it's all kind of out there.
Speaker 1: Did you record any of those phone calls? I don't know.
Speaker 1: I don't think.
Speaker 9: I don't think we were, but I think, oh, listen,
Speaker 9: I mean there are emails, the emails are published, it's
Speaker 9: all it's all kind of out there, and they're like
Speaker 9: and basically it just got to this point where we
Speaker 9: were like, no, we're not gonna We're not gonna take
Speaker 9: down things that are true.
Speaker 1: That's ridiculous.
Speaker 2: Now, it is all very well for Zuckerberg to say
Speaker 2: that his fact checking system is corrupt and biased, so
Speaker 2: he is fixing it in America, But what about for
Speaker 2: us here in Australia. We've been locked in very public
Speaker 2: disagreements with activist fact checkers here in Australia which have
Speaker 2: been paid astonishing amounts of money by Zuckerberg to sensor journalism.
Speaker 2: And these activists will still have the power to censor
Speaker 2: your thoughts at the upcoming election in a few months,
Speaker 2: we asked Meta about how it could possibly justify keeping
Speaker 2: the Australian industry going and allowing r MI t back
Speaker 2: onto Facebook's payroll, and they gave.
Speaker 1: Us this statement.
Speaker 2: No changes to Meta's third party fact checking program in
Speaker 2: Australia will happen before the federal election. We are beginning
Speaker 2: with rolling out community notes in the US. Building this
Speaker 2: type of community takes time and we will continue to
Speaker 2: improve it over the course of the year before considering
Speaker 2: expansion to other countries. In addition, before rolling out any
Speaker 2: changes to our fact checking program outside the US, we
Speaker 2: will carefully consider our legal and regulatory obligations in each country,
Speaker 2: including Australia. R MIT's Lookout is a Meta third party
Speaker 2: fact checker in Australia. R MIT have undergone some changes,
Speaker 2: including management, and their renewal application has been approved by
Speaker 2: the IFCN. On the new website they detail a code
Speaker 2: of practice which includes commitment to impartiality and fairness, etc.
Speaker 1: Etc.
Speaker 2: We all know that they never did that. Let's bring
Speaker 2: the panel back in. They did have a code of
Speaker 2: conduct r MIT, they didn't adhere to it, which is
Speaker 2: why basically we got them shut down and Russell Skelton
Speaker 2: was sacked. That's the change of management we're talking about,
Speaker 2: but it's still the same core team that's running it
Speaker 2: that've been allowed back there into Facebook. They're going to
Speaker 2: be able to censor content during the federal election. So, Louise,
Speaker 2: my problem with this it's how can these two things
Speaker 2: be true. You've got the CEO of a company saying
Speaker 2: this system's flawed. It's so flawed that we lost control
Speaker 2: of it. It's become political. In that podcast and other
Speaker 2: sections we didn't play, they discussed it being paramount to
Speaker 2: election interference as well, and the example given was, you
Speaker 2: know the Hunter Biden laptop, which they obviously took off Facebook.
Speaker 2: How many more votes would that have impacted during the referendum.
Speaker 2: We were prevented from reporting about the length of the
Speaker 2: ULARU document.
Speaker 1: By this group.
Speaker 2: Now this impacts how people vote because one there is
Speaker 2: an argument that it's misinformation.
Speaker 1: Wasn't misinformation. They were wrong.
Speaker 2: They were too uneducated to understand the argument that there
Speaker 2: was a bundle of documents. It just was what it was,
Speaker 2: whether they like it or not. These people, how could
Speaker 2: on one hand.
Speaker 1: This scheme not be fit for practice in the US.
Speaker 2: But don't worry about those people in backwater Australia and
Speaker 2: their elections.
Speaker 4: It's offensive, isn't it, Because you would think that with
Speaker 4: an election coming up and the fact they've mentioned electoral
Speaker 4: interference before and it's been an issue for them in
Speaker 4: their fact checkers. I don't see why they can't just
Speaker 4: stop the service right now. I mean, it's a digital platform,
Speaker 4: so why does it take so long to roll it
Speaker 4: out and test it an America and see about how
Speaker 4: that works and figure it.
Speaker 2: I think he is very scared of Trump because I
Speaker 2: think that if he can get hauled before some congressional
Speaker 2: inquiry and all these emails, you know, it's all very
Speaker 2: well for him to say, oh, the Biden administration made
Speaker 2: us do it.
Speaker 1: Well, you did it.
Speaker 10: Well, they did it.
Speaker 2: You know you're not you're complaining about it. Now that
Speaker 2: there's a new administration, right, it would be very easy
Speaker 2: for them to get hauled over the coals.
Speaker 6: Yeah.
Speaker 4: I'm think you're right there as well. But I think
Speaker 4: it's bad news for young voters, perhaps young people who
Speaker 4: are voting for the first time in a federal election
Speaker 4: and are going to platforms like Facebook and Instagram to
Speaker 4: get their election coverage and to work out what the
Speaker 4: candidates stand for, that's going to be corrupted and skewed.
Speaker 1: And you know, Darren, let's bring you in.
Speaker 2: What do you make of Mark Zuckerberg's just more broadly
Speaker 2: the moves to get rid of it in the US,
Speaker 2: but the inconsistency that we still have to deal with
Speaker 2: this scheme that he says is bad.
Speaker 5: Yeah, unfortunately, And it's consistent with Facebook's behavior and actions
Speaker 5: in Australia over many, many years now. They just show
Speaker 5: a complete disregard for values and Australian law and we've
Speaker 5: seen that with the Bargaining Enterprise Code that was introduced
Speaker 5: a couple of years ago and their actions over that,
Speaker 5: which is still yet to be resolved. I find it
Speaker 5: really amusing that Mark Zuckerberg goes on the Rogan podcast
Speaker 5: and seems astonished and outrage that a politician or his
Speaker 5: staff would call up and complain and scream at them.
Speaker 5: And you know, this is a daily occupational hazard for journalists,
Speaker 5: as you know, Jack, we get that all day long
Speaker 5: from politicians and contacts and other stakeholders in the publishing
Speaker 5: business and we just get on with it. And that's
Speaker 5: part of the job. And it's just another example of
Speaker 5: why you know, Facebook is a publishing platform, is the
Speaker 5: world's largest publish publishing platform, but it's not fit for purpose.
Speaker 2: I mean, we're one of the most heavily regulated media
Speaker 2: environments in the world where Akmo oversees us from a
Speaker 2: broadcasting point of view. If we ever make a mistake,
Speaker 2: we've got corrections, policies and everything. I don't need some
Speaker 2: twenty two year old indigenous rights activists who's wormed their
Speaker 2: way into a university to tell me and my team
Speaker 2: whether a document is six pages or one page. But
Speaker 2: that's what was happening, and that's the flaw with this
Speaker 2: whole thing. He's admitted it's not fit for purpose, but
Speaker 2: we're still using it. It's crazy to me. We're going
Speaker 2: to take a quick break, but when we return. An
Speaker 2: investigation into The Guardian has shed light on the toxic
Speaker 2: culture inside the Woke news room.
Speaker 1: Welcome back.
Speaker 2: Joining me now as you will each and every Friday
Speaker 2: is The Australians Media Watchdog columnist Jared Henderson. Now, Jared,
Speaker 2: you've done some fantastic investigatory work.
Speaker 3: It's something that.
Speaker 2: You've come across the ABC is their proclivity to maybe
Speaker 2: give their mates a few softball questions. Can you tell
Speaker 2: us a bit more about that.
Speaker 10: Yes, Zebbie Daniel was one of my ABC fabes when
Speaker 10: she was on the ABC and then she zipped off
Speaker 10: the ABC and then she became the Teal Independent for
Speaker 10: gold Scene, which is not far away from ABC headquarters
Speaker 10: at South Bank. And what I've noticed is over the
Speaker 10: two and a half years she gets an awful lot
Speaker 10: of runs on the ABC for someone who is not important,
Speaker 10: because if you're if you're an independent in the Senate
Speaker 10: with a vote, you matter because you've got the balance
Speaker 10: of power. If you're an independent in the current House
Speaker 10: of Representative, you have no power at all. But she
Speaker 10: may after the next election or she may not. But
Speaker 10: she got a very soft run the other day with
Speaker 10: Karlie Morris, which I think there might be a clip
Speaker 10: off here.
Speaker 1: Let's have a listen.
Speaker 11: Finally, Zoe, your set of Goldstein is home to a
Speaker 11: significant number of Jewish Australians. During his rally on the weekend,
Speaker 11: Peter Dutton highlighted the spike in anti Semitic incidents that
Speaker 11: we've seen in Australia and again blamed the Prime Minister
Speaker 11: and Labor for playing a role in that. Do you
Speaker 11: believe the government shares any responsibility.
Speaker 7: The spike in antisemitism in this country and across the
Speaker 7: world has been caused by a horrendous terrorist attack followed
Speaker 7: by a horrendous conflict in the Middle East. It should
Speaker 7: not be politically weaponized. It's terrible and it should not
Speaker 7: be happening. And it is of great concern to me
Speaker 7: in regard to what's happening in the community of Goldstein
Speaker 7: and antisemitism towards Jewish Australians. We should all be working
Speaker 7: together to resolve that, throwing fuel on it for the
Speaker 7: sake of politics.
Speaker 10: Well, what you've got there is a leading question by
Speaker 10: the interviewer as if and was the only question asked
Speaker 10: about Israel and Gaza on that segment in spite of
Speaker 10: the fact that the Zoey Daniels electorate of Goldstein has
Speaker 10: many Jewish Australians in there.
Speaker 1: So you have a.
Speaker 10: Suggestion in the question the only question that does on
Speaker 10: the topic that the essential problem with any Semitism in
Speaker 10: Australia is the fact that the Opposition leader Peter Dutton
Speaker 10: has expressed concerned about it. And then Zoey Daniel comes
Speaker 10: back and says, well, it's the only person she points
Speaker 10: her finger at is Peter Dutton. So talk about a
Speaker 10: soft question for a teal who may want to be
Speaker 10: part of minority government with Peter Dutton after the next
Speaker 10: election or may not. But I just think it's very unprofessional.
Speaker 10: I mean, it's if you're going to talk about Israel Gaza,
Speaker 10: there are more things to talk about than what an
Speaker 10: opposition leader has said. I mean, you might want to
Speaker 10: talk about what a government leader has said more important.
Speaker 10: But they're sort of mates.
Speaker 7: I mean.
Speaker 10: The other point there is that someone should have said, well,
Speaker 10: Zoe Daniel, who's now the Member for golds See, there's
Speaker 10: a long time ABC reporter. We were colleagues because Karli
Speaker 10: Morris is on the ABC, were colleagues and that would
Speaker 10: be reasonable. But to suggest that somehow there's no relationship
Speaker 10: between the two, or that Zoey Daniel's coming on the
Speaker 10: ABC because she's a teel independent. Well, in the House
Speaker 10: of Representatives, I think all up there about thirteen independents.
Speaker 10: None of them get the coverage that Zoe Daniel gets.
Speaker 10: She gets it because it mates essentially no. She was
Speaker 10: a good journalist and she's a good performer, but she
Speaker 10: might get a tough question occasionally. Wouldn't do any harm,
Speaker 10: you know.
Speaker 2: I think it would give them more credibility if they
Speaker 2: asked a tough question, and supposedly if she's such a
Speaker 2: good operator, she could be able to handle it.
Speaker 10: Well, it's run through this whole week. I mean there
Speaker 10: was a there was a soft interview with Adam bant
Speaker 10: on one day, a tough interview with the liberal senator
Speaker 10: Joan Hume, a soft interview this morning with a Palestinian
Speaker 10: representative who spoke quite well, but he was a selft
Speaker 10: interview with him, tough interview with Simon Birmingham, who's the
Speaker 10: Opposition shadow Foreign Minister. So what you've got is these
Speaker 10: sort of soft interviews with your ideological mates and sometimes
Speaker 10: your personal mates.
Speaker 2: And quite scathing when it's someone on the other.
Speaker 10: Side, and a tough one of somehow Peter Dutton gets
Speaker 10: in there.
Speaker 2: Well, let's move on now, because you've also had a
Speaker 2: look at the ABC seven thirty report, yes, where they've
Speaker 2: taken swing and Mark Zuckerberg.
Speaker 1: What do you make of it?
Speaker 10: Well, there was a late last night and at the
Speaker 10: end of the program last night there was a special
Speaker 10: mention about Zuckerberg and how Zuckerberg has now realized that
Speaker 10: Facebook was being biased, that he has said this, that
Speaker 10: the fact checkers I've covered this in my column and
Speaker 10: the Weekend Australia tomorrow, that the fact checkers have been
Speaker 10: biased against right of scent of views, and he's coming
Speaker 10: back to his more libertarian past. So the ABC does
Speaker 10: a program on it, a brief one in seven point thirty,
Speaker 10: A reasonable thing to do. But the two commentators they
Speaker 10: have on are both various strong critics of Zuckerberg, including
Speaker 10: Lizzie O'sche, well known left wing lawyer from Melbourne. But
Speaker 10: you know, if you're going to get a comment from her.
Speaker 2: Could have had a comment from us. Those fact checkers
Speaker 2: came after us during the referendumness came after Peter Kredlin.
Speaker 2: And you've got these twenty two year old activists trying
Speaker 2: to rule on how long a document is. Is it
Speaker 2: one page, is a six page? Doesn't matter?
Speaker 10: I mean the ABC presents misinformation and disinformation as if
Speaker 10: there's only one view on it, but matters that some
Speaker 10: people classify as misinformation are classified is true by others.
Speaker 10: And so you've got a lot of young left wing
Speaker 10: people working around censori Essentially and zuckerb. Zuckerberger said, after
Speaker 10: a number of years, he said, look, we're not going
Speaker 10: to do there's anymore. We're going to do a different
Speaker 10: way of looking at it. But on the ABC last night,
Speaker 10: you wouldn't have any idea about that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, And there's a lot of nuance with that as well. Now,
Speaker 2: we often get some very vocal and strong predictions in
Speaker 2: the media, but I know there's one particular journalist who's
Speaker 2: quite bolshy with her predictions, who maybe something from the
Speaker 2: past has turned out to be not so true.
Speaker 10: Well, I think there's one clip on this, and I
Speaker 10: think I think there's something I've put up. I mean,
Speaker 10: as someone who's followed the Liberal Party for many decades,
Speaker 10: too many decades, I guess I can at least go
Speaker 10: back to the nineteen eighties when journalists and commentators were
Speaker 10: predicting the end of the Liberal Party. But Laura Tingle
Speaker 10: this as recently as twenty eighteen that when Malcolm Turnbull
Speaker 10: got turfed out, she basically said, look, this is the
Speaker 10: end of the modern Liberal Party as we know it.
Speaker 10: I think we've got a grab And there's another graph
Speaker 10: of what she said. Later on, when the Voice was on,
Speaker 10: she also made a similar comment about Peter Dutton and
Speaker 10: the Voice.
Speaker 1: Let's have a lesson.
Speaker 10: I don't think it's necessarily going to do any good
Speaker 10: for Peter Dutton if the No case wins in the
Speaker 10: long term. Well there you are the ABC's television designated
Speaker 10: expert on politics, which were taking the Labor Party, the
Speaker 10: Liberal Party, the Nationals, the Greens, the Independence and whatever else.
Speaker 10: So in twenty eighteen you predict the party is going
Speaker 10: to die because you make Malcolm Turble's not there anymore.
Speaker 10: I mean there's a group of ABC reporters who will
Speaker 10: tolerate a coalition government providers led by someone like Malcolm Turnbull,
Speaker 10: but not like Tony Abbott or like Peter Dutton. So
Speaker 10: you make that prediction the modern Liberal Party is at
Speaker 10: its death rows, but under Scott Morrison wins the next selection.
Speaker 10: And then you come up to the Voice referendum where
Speaker 10: Peter Dutton takes a controversial view and says he's going
Speaker 10: to support No, and virtually I mean I can't think
Speaker 10: of anyone in the ABC who would have voted No,
Speaker 10: although sixty percent of Australian instead. But as the lead
Speaker 10: up comes to the referendum and all the polls are
Speaker 10: indicating NO is going to win. Laura Tingle says that
Speaker 10: if No does win, it won't doing Dutton any good
Speaker 10: any rate. No No, we know whether you agree with
Speaker 10: the yes case or you don't. We know that Dutton's
Speaker 10: opposition to the No was very successful with the support
Speaker 10: of dissenter Price and Warramundine and others, and send it
Speaker 10: Laddell from South Australia was very successful. But there's Laura
Speaker 10: s engleson was if No wins or Night, it won't
Speaker 10: help Dunton. Well that's just profoundly wrong. So it seem
Speaker 10: to me if you're making all these profoundly wrong predictions
Speaker 10: about the Liberal Party, perhaps you might retire from the
Speaker 10: Liberal Party and just talk about the Greens or something
Speaker 10: for change. But no one's predicted at the end of
Speaker 10: the Greens.
Speaker 2: But there you go, brilliant Jared Anderson, thank you so
Speaker 2: much for taking us slips all of that. That's all
Speaker 2: the time that we have for tonight. But up next
Speaker 2: is Newsnight.