Speaker 1: This is the media issue with Jack outing hello and
Speaker 1: welcome to the media show. We have a big one
Speaker 1: tonight with the Prime minister's latest attack on the free press.
Speaker 1: But first, there has been a trend in the media
Speaker 1: where blind faith is given to one side of politics,
Speaker 1: while every decision by a conservative leader is viewed with
Speaker 1: skepticism and scorn. This inconsistency was on display when President
Speaker 1: Joe Biden promised to not pardon his convicted tax criminal
Speaker 1: son Hunter Biden.
Speaker 2: He is not pardoning his son, which he could do.
Speaker 2: These are federal trojles. He is not doing that. He
Speaker 2: is not doing it because he is living what it
Speaker 2: means to have a rule of law in this country,
Speaker 2: and it is I mean, if you want to know
Speaker 2: if he believes it, you can actually see what is
Speaker 2: happening with his own son.
Speaker 3: For years, these conservatives have been crowing about a politicized
Speaker 3: justice department. Biden politicized it and so on. What happened
Speaker 3: today The Justice Department convicted the president's own son, his
Speaker 3: only living son. You heard the President say he would
Speaker 3: accept the outcome of the case. I know no other
Speaker 3: word for that, but presidential.
Speaker 4: One side Democrats and Joe Biden protecting the justice system,
Speaker 4: and on the other Republicans and Trump protecting Trump.
Speaker 1: This week that blind faith was shattered. We're coming on
Speaker 1: the air this hour with breaking news.
Speaker 5: President Biden has just pardoned his son Hunter on gun
Speaker 5: and tax charges.
Speaker 6: Issuing a quote full and unconditional pardon to his son.
Speaker 5: President Biden has made a decision to pardon his son.
Speaker 3: Hunter, excusing any offenses the first son may have committed
Speaker 3: over the past decade.
Speaker 1: And then came the spin. Journalists and media pundance over
Speaker 1: at MSNBC were quick to explain why this betrayal was
Speaker 1: actually very justified.
Speaker 5: Barb I know you believe that this pardon was justified.
Speaker 5: How do you respond to even allies of the president
Speaker 5: who say this is bad for the rule of law,
Speaker 5: bad for trust and the justice system, and bad precedent overall.
Speaker 5: Just that.
Speaker 7: Yeah.
Speaker 4: I think the biggest concern is Joe Biden's flip flop
Speaker 4: on this. At one point he said he would not
Speaker 4: pardon his son, and now of course he has done so.
Speaker 4: And I think that is probably where this feeling of
Speaker 4: betrayal comes from. But I also think you have to
Speaker 4: look at the fact that circumstances have changed since he
Speaker 4: made those statements. We've had Donald Trump now elected president
Speaker 4: and vowing to seek retribution against his political rivals. How
Speaker 4: better to get back at Joe Biden than to go
Speaker 4: after Hunter Biden, his son.
Speaker 1: But not everyone was so daft. John Stewart raised legitimate
Speaker 1: questions about the sweeping wording of the pottom. You know,
Speaker 1: I get fine, it's good, it's right, It's just right.
Speaker 1: An eighty two year old man doesn't want.
Speaker 2: To spend the rest of his life visiting his son
Speaker 2: in prison.
Speaker 7: Can't a wave with all the time.
Speaker 2: I'm sure the pardon is a narrowly written, precise drawn
Speaker 2: farewell note of compassion for a loved one.
Speaker 5: The pardon sweeping covering offenses that Hunter Biden quote has
Speaker 5: committed or may have committed or taken.
Speaker 1: Part in over the past eleven years eleven years is
Speaker 1: very specific. Well, joining me on the panel, his host
Speaker 1: of six PR Drive Perth Oliver Peterson, veteran broadcast Joining
Speaker 1: me on the desk, cal Richards. John Stewart is brilliant.
Speaker 8: He's wonderful, and he's pointed out exactly what the problem is.
Speaker 8: This goes back to twenty eleven and it covers whatever
Speaker 8: he did might have done that hasn't been found out yet,
Speaker 8: or might have been involved in because there is a theory.
Speaker 8: Miranda Devine in her book The Big Guy talks about this,
Speaker 8: the fact that the whole Biden family was involved. Part
Speaker 8: of what Joe Biden is doing in pardonings Hunter is
Speaker 8: protecting himself. Suddenly there's no conviction against his son, so
Speaker 8: we can't questions about, you know, where the money went
Speaker 8: and whether Joe got a few dollars out of it
Speaker 8: or whatever. The whole thing is bizarre, and the reason
Speaker 8: he gave the reason he gave is his own Justice
Speaker 8: Department is rigged and politicized. They went after for Hunda
Speaker 8: because he was my son. That was the only reason.
Speaker 8: So Trump has been saying, look, the Justice Department has
Speaker 8: rigged and politicized, and Biden has no no, no oh,
Speaker 8: except for Hunda.
Speaker 7: It is hit for him, it's just absent.
Speaker 1: I think the point as well that John Stewart was
Speaker 1: making is that that exact period of time dates back
Speaker 1: to twenty fourteen where you've got the Barisma allegation from
Speaker 1: christ said very complex stuff, but essentially he's been put
Speaker 1: on the board of this energy company making an extraordinary
Speaker 1: amount of money with no qualification, with what kind of
Speaker 1: influence that's right?
Speaker 7: And where did the money end up going.
Speaker 8: So obviously there's a lot going on here, and the
Speaker 8: question is who does he pardon next. I mean there
Speaker 8: are people now saying he should give preemptive pardons to anyone,
Speaker 8: preemptive people, not charged, not not on lys should have
Speaker 8: done anything.
Speaker 7: Just in case it all gets really terrible in the future.
Speaker 1: Yes, so much for that moral high ground, Oliver, let's
Speaker 1: bring you in. The thing that really jumped out at
Speaker 1: me with this case is the media. When I went
Speaker 1: back and rewatched some of those clips, there was no skepticism,
Speaker 1: there was no probit of questions. If anything, it was
Speaker 1: used as a talking point, by the way, in the
Speaker 1: middle of an election campaign, so he was posturing basically
Speaker 1: for votes. Oh you know, Donald Trump is this evil
Speaker 1: person that uses he's going to use power maliciously. But me,
Speaker 1: I won't even pardon my son. And the way that
Speaker 1: the media just allowed that to permeate without challenging it,
Speaker 1: I think it's rather problematic.
Speaker 9: Absolutely, And even in the clip you played there about
Speaker 9: the flip flop and was justified the circumstances have changed
Speaker 9: because Donald Trump's coming to power. I'll tell you who
Speaker 9: he should have pardoned. As Kel just said, the preemptive pardon.
Speaker 9: Why doesn't he pardon Donald Trump? And I mean Donald
Speaker 9: Trump's lawyers obviously now have a the' very good reasons
Speaker 9: we even ask for pardon if you actually want to
Speaker 9: try and bring America back together and actually unite the country.
Speaker 9: That's what Biden could have done in the cell of
Speaker 9: trying to pardon his own son. If he pardoned if
Speaker 9: he pardoned Hunter, and he pardoned Trump, imagine, then that
Speaker 9: would just sort of eliminate a lot of I suppose
Speaker 9: the hostility around even this discussion, But it is hip
Speaker 9: critical of Joe Biden to do this in the final
Speaker 9: days of his presidency. If you are a Democrat in
Speaker 9: the United States right now, you would just be pulling
Speaker 9: your hair out, just try to gather the pieces together.
Speaker 9: After Kamala Harris has lost there in the presidential election,
Speaker 9: then you look at this and go, what in the
Speaker 9: world do we stand for as.
Speaker 10: A political party?
Speaker 9: If that has been the attack against Donald Trump for
Speaker 9: the last five years now, the Democrats themselves have absolutely
Speaker 9: no leg to stand on. So seeing any justification for this,
Speaker 9: and some of those clips you played before, Jack, you
Speaker 9: just can't comprehend it. It cannot defend the decision that's
Speaker 9: been made.
Speaker 1: Yet some will always find a way. But moving on
Speaker 1: to the assassination of a CEO who ran a health
Speaker 1: insurance company in America, and the disturbing and brazen attack
Speaker 1: in New York City was caught on camera, and the
Speaker 1: murderer is now on the run, And for the most part,
Speaker 1: the media covered this story responsibly, But The New York
Speaker 1: Times used the extra media interest to launch an attack
Speaker 1: on the insurance company before the assailant has even been caught.
Speaker 1: They write, United Healthcare has battled a range of complaints
Speaker 1: and investigations from patients, doctors, and lawmakers for its denial
Speaker 1: of medical claims. Those practices may face new scrutiny after
Speaker 1: law enforcement officials said that the bullet casings found on
Speaker 1: the site of the killing of the United Healthcare chief
Speaker 1: executive Brian Thompson on Wednesday appeared to have messages including
Speaker 1: the words deny and delay written on them.
Speaker 7: Now.
Speaker 1: The article also states that social media users were using
Speaker 1: the murder to express frustration over insurance claims being denied
Speaker 1: for them and quote others have gone even further, celebrating
Speaker 1: the death of a top insurance executive. Now, there was
Speaker 1: no suggestion in that article that these celebrations were wrong,
Speaker 1: but one journalist refused to dance around the issue and
Speaker 1: instead blatantly advocated for the death of insurance executives. Former
Speaker 1: Washington Post reporter Taylor Lorenz, who rose to infamy over
Speaker 1: her bizarre reporting during the pandemic, wrote this, why we
Speaker 1: wanted insurance executives dead. No, that does not mean that
Speaker 1: people should murder them. But if you've watched a loved
Speaker 1: one suffer and die from insurance denial, it's normal to
Speaker 1: wish the people responsible would suffer the same fate. And
Speaker 1: she repeated these vile comments on social media platform blue Sky,
Speaker 1: which is supposed to be this safe space away from
Speaker 1: Elon Musk. Remember, and the New York Post reports Taylor
Speaker 1: Lorenz defends United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson's murder in sickening post.
Speaker 1: People wonder what we want these executives dead? Now? In
Speaker 1: my opinion, this is a call for violence and should
Speaker 1: be condemned by all reasonable people. Kel it's a fine
Speaker 1: line between doing some of this more investigative journalism, and
Speaker 1: then at least putting forward the appearance that there was
Speaker 1: some sort of justification. Now, honestly, this Taylor Lorenz person indefensible,
Speaker 1: a maniac. The New York Times story is a little
Speaker 1: bit more gray because there are issues in the American
Speaker 1: healthcare system. But the timing of that article, I thought,
Speaker 1: if you're a family member, if you're looking at that,
Speaker 1: is that really the time to have that conversation.
Speaker 8: New York Times strade very close, I think to the
Speaker 8: boundary of what you do not say this was murder.
Speaker 8: If they were to say there's a problem with private
Speaker 8: health insurance in America. This is a billion dollar company.
Speaker 8: This man has become ementionally rich, and it's so terrible
Speaker 8: in America. Recently, one of the your companies said they
Speaker 8: won't cover and aesthetics beyond a certain point. If your
Speaker 8: surgery goes longer than that, they stop paying. I mean,
Speaker 8: it would be awful if the anesthesia stopped at that point.
Speaker 7: So there are problems. And one person they.
Speaker 1: Also follow the law, They've got the legal framework, they're set.
Speaker 8: There, And there was there was one person who was
Speaker 8: joining with Taylor on this, saying he did the victim
Speaker 8: have a pre existing condition joke. So once what's happened
Speaker 8: is someone has died, someone has been shot, then nothing
Speaker 8: you say about, well, you can understand why people are angry. Well,
Speaker 8: this might be justified by their anger with health insurance company.
Speaker 1: It would be like if a cop was shot in
Speaker 1: America and then the New York Times ran a story
Speaker 1: about injustices made committed by the police force.
Speaker 7: Parallel, more broadly, is.
Speaker 1: To me, it's not appropriate that there is no justification.
Speaker 1: There is a way to have that fight. It's legislatively,
Speaker 1: it's through potentially social activism on social media. It's not
Speaker 1: justifying them away.
Speaker 8: From an event like this, a dramatic event. Then you
Speaker 8: make the case there's a problem with health insurance companies.
Speaker 8: Otherwise it does look as though you were saying, well,
Speaker 8: Lauder it on himself.
Speaker 7: You know, they behave like this, they get shot.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and they've got no problems editorializing on every other issue.
Speaker 1: But there wasn't a line, and they're saying, you know, reprehensibly.
Speaker 1: Some people said they didn't characterize in the way that
Speaker 1: they do other things. Just what jumped out at me, Oliver.
Speaker 1: Let's bring you in what do you think of this
Speaker 1: whole mess.
Speaker 7: I think they've lost the plot.
Speaker 9: I think if they're as you said, Jack, if they're
Speaker 9: going to be effectively inciting murder, to say, if you're
Speaker 9: not happy with you, you know, health insurer, shoot the CEO.
Speaker 9: That's effectively the message, which is just wrong and should
Speaker 9: be condemned in every possible sense of the logic of
Speaker 9: that statement. I just I can't believe that that's what
Speaker 9: would be reported in the Times.
Speaker 7: I think that this is.
Speaker 9: A point as well where the media has responsibility, Jack,
Speaker 9: because if this is the sort of path we want
Speaker 9: to tread down in the mainstream media, then you can
Speaker 9: make that justification for anything. Oh I don't like the
Speaker 9: water bill, go and shoot the CEO. I don't like
Speaker 9: my electricity bill, go and shoot the CEO. No, you know,
Speaker 9: we're very lucky to be living in democracies like Australian
Speaker 9: Obviously in the United States, this is a really worrying trend,
Speaker 9: and I think you can obviously go and map that argument.
Speaker 9: You can go and have that investigative piece of journalism
Speaker 9: that sits to some side well and truly away from
Speaker 9: the cold blooded murder of a chief executive.
Speaker 7: Walking down the street.
Speaker 9: I just cannot believe that we are able to even
Speaker 9: publish that sort of stuff and think that it's okay,
Speaker 9: because what's going to be thought provoking?
Speaker 7: No, it's not.
Speaker 9: You're basically trying to green light murder and it really
Speaker 9: sits really poorly with me.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I completely agree, And look, I think the other
Speaker 1: point kel is a lot of Taylor Loren's commentary was
Speaker 1: on this new social media platform Blue Sky, which the
Speaker 1: left has abandoned Twitter x whatever. I'm still calling it Twitter.
Speaker 1: That's what it is. I want to hear anything different.
Speaker 1: Have abandoned Twitter to go over to this place. These
Speaker 1: are the the conversations I'll have. I don't think you're
Speaker 1: going to hear these human rights groups calling for advertisers
Speaker 1: to boycott this place.
Speaker 8: No, No, it's quite bizarre. And when she put in
Speaker 8: her posts, there was a pylon, lots and lots of
Speaker 8: and I must add on this is where social media
Speaker 8: got a lot.
Speaker 1: Of defense though on it, which is a bit disturbing.
Speaker 8: But on the Facebook page for the health insurance company
Speaker 8: United Healthcare, there were thirty five thousand ha has underneath
Speaker 8: the news that this man had been killed, and only
Speaker 8: about two thousand, very sads. So social media, we know
Speaker 8: is a poisoned environment. It's a dangerous That's why we
Speaker 8: need mainstream media. And can I just say, this is
Speaker 8: why the New York Times needs to get intact together.
Speaker 8: The New York Times of twenty years ago wouldn't have
Speaker 8: done this. They've gone a long way down the road
Speaker 8: of not understanding what good journalism is anymore.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I would have liked one paragraph in there quoting
Speaker 1: someone saying, obviously, this is not the right way about it.
Speaker 1: Just I think they missed an opportunity to lower the
Speaker 1: tempo of that article in particular. But moving on another
Speaker 1: week and another insane segment, which went to air on MSNBC.
Speaker 1: This time, host Joy Read linked opposition to the affirmative
Speaker 1: care approach to child trans procedures to Nazi Germany.
Speaker 11: Targeting trans people isn't new. It is an age old
Speaker 11: tradition which Nazi Germany did with brutally violent ends in
Speaker 11: the nineteen thirties. While the Supreme Court refuses to do
Speaker 11: anything about weapons of war in school today, they seemed
Speaker 11: inclined to uphold Tennessee's ban on gender affirming care for minors,
Speaker 11: while the decision is not expected for months. A majority
Speaker 11: of the justices parroted a string of debunked talking points,
Speaker 11: all under the guise of protecting the kids, just not
Speaker 11: every kid.
Speaker 1: Well, Oliver, let's bring you in. This is a really
Speaker 1: interesting argument about affirmative care, and I think it's a
Speaker 1: really good argument to have. And I'll note that in
Speaker 1: the UK the Tavistock issue involved in actually being shut
Speaker 1: down and massive, massive which draws on it. I know
Speaker 1: that in Australia even people like Paul Barry have been
Speaker 1: talking about the dangers of this more affirmative care approach.
Speaker 1: But you've got a mainstream network over in the US
Speaker 1: which is likening opposition to that affirmative care approach to Nazism.
Speaker 1: I think that I think that these people have kind
Speaker 1: of lost the plot.
Speaker 10: Yeah, it's sort.
Speaker 9: Of the theme at the moment, isn't it, Jack, And
Speaker 9: I don't mean to really lighten that up, But ultimately,
Speaker 9: if you can't mount your argument, and you can't get
Speaker 9: any cut through in a sensible conversation and obviously trying
Speaker 9: to present your facts and try to have a balanced debate,
Speaker 9: to then stoop to that sort of below exactly, you've
Speaker 9: lost the plot. You've lost the argument because that's sort
Speaker 9: of a sudden what people are going to go hold
Speaker 9: on a moment. I will have a look at that
Speaker 9: and then how we ended up in this situation. It
Speaker 9: does not do the activist's role. It doesn't progress the
Speaker 9: activist's role in what they're trying to do, which is
Speaker 9: ultimately bringing about change, and that's what they want to do,
Speaker 9: and that's what we know has been done for generations.
Speaker 7: But in this example, Jack, you just you lose the argument.
Speaker 9: And I don't know why in this environment as well,
Speaker 9: MSNBC would want to actually join those dots together or
Speaker 9: try and mount that case. It just it goes to
Speaker 9: the core of its credibility.
Speaker 1: Yeah, which is the plot. Yeah, it's so extreme, and
Speaker 1: obviously it's good, it's good to have debates. I just
Speaker 1: I think that is one particular thing where I mean,
Speaker 1: it's it's a symptom of a left right where they
Speaker 1: everything's Nazism and everything means this threshold. So then you've
Speaker 1: kind of you've lost it for situations where there is
Speaker 1: that real extreme.
Speaker 8: Is exactly in fact, what Joey Reid did was to
Speaker 8: break Carson's law. Carson is an American lawyer and blogger
Speaker 8: Carson's law says the first person to cite the Nazis
Speaker 8: in a debate loses the debate. Right, that's a great
Speaker 8: law because it exposes how weak what they're saying is.
Speaker 8: And she hadn't actually paid attention to what the Supreme
Speaker 8: Court is doing. Justice and Leader question Biden's solicitor general,
Speaker 8: who's putting up a case. She put up a case
Speaker 8: saying there's no dispute. This is really safe. Everyone knows that,
Speaker 8: and so he cided the case the Cash file. A
Speaker 8: doctor Hillary Cash has just produced a major report in
Speaker 8: Britain in which he said there were all these child
Speaker 8: psychologist who are really worried there are lifelong implications from
Speaker 8: puberty blocker.
Speaker 1: Drugs and they can't consent.
Speaker 8: And Alida said to the person bringing the case on
Speaker 8: behalf of Biden, do you want to reconsider your presentation
Speaker 8: to the court, And she said no, Now that's what's
Speaker 8: actually happening in the court.
Speaker 7: Joy Reid has missed all of that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, well said, well, we're going to take a
Speaker 1: quick break, but when we return, we're going to have
Speaker 1: a look at the Prime Minister and his latest assault
Speaker 1: on journalism. Welcome back now to a feud between Prime
Speaker 1: Minister Anthony Albanezi and his Environment Minister Tanya Pliversek and
Speaker 1: how the PM turned his anger towards the media for
Speaker 1: accurately reporting about it. It all related to a draft
Speaker 1: agreement between the PM's government and the Greens over the
Speaker 1: establishment of a new environmental protection agency, but on the ABC,
Speaker 1: the Prime Minister was denying that the draft agreement even existed.
Speaker 1: There is a.
Speaker 6: Draft agreement though, and a letter to you that says
Speaker 6: draft agreement on the top and spells out what that No,
Speaker 6: there's not that. Well I've seen that the draft letter
Speaker 6: from her, a draft agreement from Tanya Plibersek to the
Speaker 6: Greens laying out the amen.
Speaker 12: Well, there's no draft agreement to me, and what we did.
Speaker 6: Was make sure is saying that letter doesn't exist.
Speaker 10: Well, no letter to me exists.
Speaker 12: I was negotiating across the parliament and that's how you
Speaker 12: have to do it.
Speaker 6: The Greens were of the view that you had agreed
Speaker 6: to this, but then.
Speaker 12: Hours later, no, they weren't. David, I don't accept that.
Speaker 12: That's what they've told me.
Speaker 10: Well, I don't accept that.
Speaker 1: David Spears is a good journalist. If he says on
Speaker 1: national television that he has seen the actual piece of paper,
Speaker 1: then either Albanezi does not know what's going on in
Speaker 1: his own government or he has lied yet again. And
Speaker 1: in the same interview, Alberzi also struggled to explain why
Speaker 1: his environment minister appeared to be cut out of negotiations
Speaker 1: at the last minute.
Speaker 6: It was you, Adamband, Sarah Hanson Young, but not Kady
Speaker 6: Gallaher Okay, but not Tenua Plibusk the minister.
Speaker 12: Why not because we had forty five pieces of legislation
Speaker 12: David forty five across the economy, bets affairs, social policy,
Speaker 12: housing policy.
Speaker 10: That's what has to.
Speaker 1: Happen, was Sarah Hanson Young?
Speaker 6: There wasn't it general meeting about.
Speaker 10: Also, because he's the Senate leader for the Greens.
Speaker 1: Politicians have tension all the time, even within their own parties,
Speaker 1: so I wouldn't normally make a big point of it,
Speaker 1: except for the fact that Alberzi tried to play the
Speaker 1: misinformation card yet again. Here he is on ABC radio
Speaker 1: saying that it was extraordinary that the media was focusing
Speaker 1: on reports of a feud.
Speaker 9: How are things between you and Chenia plibusc Now though,
Speaker 9: because there's still confusion from some over what happened here
Speaker 9: and talk of it in eternal feud, can you pategorically deny.
Speaker 12: That, Absolutely, there's still some It's extraordinary that the media
Speaker 12: want to concentrate on what didn't happen as opposed to
Speaker 12: what did happen.
Speaker 1: The Sydney Morning Herald has been running articles saying that
Speaker 1: Albanezy threw Plibasek under the bus over this issue. So
Speaker 1: you have journalists from the ABC, from here at Sky News,
Speaker 1: from the nine newspapers, all aligned in what they are
Speaker 1: hearing about tension. But to our Prime minister, how dare
Speaker 1: we report on that? Power really does go to their heads.
Speaker 1: He expects us to only say nice things about him,
Speaker 1: and if he disagrees with the narrative, well it's all
Speaker 1: just misinformation. Kel it's a Albanize has got a bad
Speaker 1: track record of doing this. It doesn't even need to
Speaker 1: be super negative. He's very combative and he has this
Speaker 1: very hostile approach to it. I think David Spears did
Speaker 1: a brilliant job saying, well, you say this draft agreement
Speaker 1: doesn't exist, I've seen it.
Speaker 8: It made him very uncomfortable and once you gave me
Speaker 8: an option. Albanize is either lying or doesn't know what's
Speaker 8: happening in his own government. I'm really tempted to go
Speaker 8: with doesn't know what's happening in his own government, because
Speaker 8: a lot of the time it looks like that. But
Speaker 8: this feud is just it wasn't just the establishment of
Speaker 8: this new Green body that was that he put They
Speaker 8: also the Southern dispute in Tasmania. It is clearly they
Speaker 8: are not on the same page. There's got to be
Speaker 8: a way for a good communicator to say in that
Speaker 8: kind of situation when Spears has got his number, look
Speaker 8: we disagree about things, but in the end we're colleagues
Speaker 8: or whatever.
Speaker 1: They're obviously handle it agreed. Oliver your thoughts, well, yeah,
Speaker 1: spot on.
Speaker 9: I mean, look at the track record, Daniel plivest gap
Speaker 9: in the Albanezi.
Speaker 7: They've never been on the same page. You look at
Speaker 7: the decisions.
Speaker 9: It seems as though anything that she has gone to do,
Speaker 9: as Kel points out, for salmon or nature positive, which
Speaker 9: is really going to have a big impact here in Wa,
Speaker 9: even in the hills.
Speaker 7: Here in Perth.
Speaker 9: The environmental approval was given on a very controversial projects
Speaker 9: it's like she does one thing and he's like, no, no, no,
Speaker 9: I don't want you to do that, and I'm going
Speaker 9: to undermine you. So it's not going to be approved.
Speaker 9: This is coming to a head. We can all see it.
Speaker 9: They can deny it, but it doesn't It doesn't look good,
Speaker 9: does it.
Speaker 7: No?
Speaker 1: Well said and Oliver, while we've got you, what's your
Speaker 1: story of the week.
Speaker 9: Well, it has to be the flip flop from both
Speaker 9: the Commonwealth Bank and Australian Venues Co. How in the
Speaker 9: world you can have strategists and communications executives at these
Speaker 9: companies saying it's a good idea to not celebrate Australia
Speaker 9: Day or to charge people three bucks to get their
Speaker 9: money from atteller before it all blowing up and spectacularly
Speaker 9: doing a one hundred and eighty degree flip in just
Speaker 9: twenty four hours. Has Corporate Australia not learned Jack? It
Speaker 9: is just remarkable how to big organizations, particularly Combake, one
Speaker 9: of the biggest in the nation, could make such an
Speaker 9: error this week and damage their brand to the tune
Speaker 9: they have just weeks before Christmas.
Speaker 1: They'll never learn, They'll never learn.
Speaker 8: Kel What have you got, oh, Joe Biden falling asleep
Speaker 8: in Africa when he's surrounded by important people and they're
Speaker 8: having a conference, and there he is, sound asleep. He's
Speaker 8: got a track record of doing this. He's done this
Speaker 8: on really important occasions. The thing that really amuses me
Speaker 8: is whenever it happens, there's some Democrat media supporters in
Speaker 8: America who's no, no.
Speaker 1: No, no, this is but they told us he was okay, yeah, no.
Speaker 7: No, but this is wrong. He wasn't sleeping, he was
Speaker 7: resting his eyes.
Speaker 1: Kel Oliver, thank you so much for joining me. Unfortunately,
Speaker 1: that's all the time I have for tonight. Up next
Speaker 1: is lefties losing it.