Speaker 1: This is the Media Show with Jack outing, Hello and
Speaker 1: welcome to the Media Show. Tonight. We'll discuss a scandal
Speaker 1: of the Age newspaper and much more. But first, it
Speaker 1: was once unbelievably the biggest story in the world, but
Speaker 1: the Project's interview with breakdowns of Raygun was just a
Speaker 1: sixteen minute flop.
Speaker 2: How are you doing?
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's been a pretty wild ride. I'm not gonna lie.
Speaker 3: I definitely have my ups and downs, my good and
Speaker 3: bad days. But it has been honestly so amazing to
Speaker 3: see the positive response to my performance. Like I never
Speaker 3: thought that I would be able to connect with so
Speaker 3: many people in such a positive way.
Speaker 1: It was billed as a world exclusive, but despite the
Speaker 1: hype and previous global obsession with the story, the publicity
Speaker 1: didn't really move the needle. TV Tonight reports the project
Speaker 1: interview draws world headlines, but no season high. It drew
Speaker 1: three hundred and forty three thousand viewers a national TV audience,
Speaker 1: which is probably down on what ten was hoping for.
Speaker 1: That number is only on par with last Wednesdays three
Speaker 1: hundred and thirty nine thousand, but no chance to spook
Speaker 1: as a season high. We heard the project was happy
Speaker 1: with the social media performance, But when we last checked
Speaker 1: the full interview on YouTube, it only had one hundred
Speaker 1: and sixty thousand views. To put that in comparison, just
Speaker 1: three weeks ago, a two minute clip on Reygun published
Speaker 1: to the Sky News YouTube page has been viewed more
Speaker 1: than ten million times. So why has the public interest
Speaker 1: dropped off so significantly? Well, digital audiences move on fast.
Speaker 1: Trends can be now hourly, and people like Reyguan who
Speaker 1: take the world by storm one day can be completely
Speaker 1: old news by the time pr contracts assigned and deals
Speaker 1: and negotiated. But of course another reason for the lack
Speaker 1: of interest could be the quality of content itself. Host
Speaker 1: will Lee Ali did ask a few tough questions like
Speaker 1: this one.
Speaker 4: Genuinely think you are the best female breaker in Australia.
Speaker 2: Well, I think my record speaks to that, But he
Speaker 2: also didn't push back against very cringe moments like this,
Speaker 2: where Raygan admitted that she was loving the fame her
Speaker 2: humiliating performance had afforded her.
Speaker 5: The upside is you get.
Speaker 6: Random people with contacting you that you never thought would
Speaker 6: ever notice you, you know, And it's not just like
Speaker 6: breakers that you've respected for you know, a decade. It's
Speaker 6: someone like Sir Richard Branson calling you to say that
Speaker 6: he enjoyed your performance and he thought that you.
Speaker 3: It was plucky and courageous and fun.
Speaker 4: And you know he would love to, you know, do
Speaker 4: something with me and have me on some cruises with
Speaker 4: boy George, Like.
Speaker 3: What is life?
Speaker 2: I don't know?
Speaker 7: Well.
Speaker 1: Joining me on the show this week is the Australians
Speaker 1: media writer Sophie Elsworth and Sky News contributor Louise Roberts. Luise,
Speaker 1: thanks for joining us. Let's start with you to go
Speaker 1: from this thing where you've got Jimmy Fallon is doing
Speaker 1: skits about her it's a global sensation, to barely being
Speaker 1: able to get a bump.
Speaker 8: You know.
Speaker 1: It's maybe five k more viewers than the previous week.
Speaker 1: To me, it shows that just the appetite for this
Speaker 1: woman has completely fallen off a cliff. What do you
Speaker 1: make of it?
Speaker 6: I agree?
Speaker 7: I think the interview was done too long after the
Speaker 7: actual event itself. But also there wasn't anything new or
Speaker 7: kind of spiky that came in the interview because it
Speaker 7: was so soft. I mean, the question I wanted to
Speaker 7: answered is are you going to say sorry to a
Speaker 7: talented dancer whose place that you took the fact that
Speaker 7: somebody could have actually got points and won, And how
Speaker 7: do you feel about sort of base disarming and insulting
Speaker 7: the whole breakdancing community. There was no sense of humility
Speaker 7: or anything.
Speaker 1: There was a lot of laughs and yeah, you're right,
Speaker 1: because there was that Sophie, let's bring you in here
Speaker 1: as well. There was footage that came out of that
Speaker 1: number two dancer and the qualifier Holly Molly, who was
Speaker 1: dancing very well, and some people said, gee, clearly there's
Speaker 1: probably some better breakdancers. It didn't really seem like her
Speaker 1: skill was prosecuted that thoroughly by Willie Alli, and it
Speaker 1: kind of turned into a bit of you know, smiles,
Speaker 1: a bit lighthearted, but there were some serious questions to
Speaker 1: be asked around Reagan because she was flown over to Paris,
Speaker 1: she was representing Australia and then she's kind of laughing
Speaker 1: about hanging out with Richard Branson and boy George. I
Speaker 1: thought it was a bit off putting. What's your take
Speaker 1: of this?
Speaker 9: Well, it was billed as a world exclusive and Network
Speaker 9: ten were certainly pumping it up, but I don't think
Speaker 9: that it had the impact that they certainly hoped it
Speaker 9: would achieve, and those rating figures prove that it didn't
Speaker 9: really shed any new light on much about her, and
Speaker 9: she didn't really seem to be that humiliated by what
Speaker 9: many would argue was a pretty dismal performance at the
Speaker 9: Olympic Games. And then she sort of joked about the
Speaker 9: fallout from it, making those references with Richard Branson. So
Speaker 9: I think the interview didn't really hit the mark, and
Speaker 9: I think it left a lot of people pretty disinterested.
Speaker 9: And I think she has had her fifteen minutes of
Speaker 9: fame and many people have now moved on.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's a really good point. And to your earlier point,
Speaker 1: it was it took too long. It did, and so
Speaker 1: I think this is a lesson from a public relations
Speaker 1: point of view. You've got so she signed up for
Speaker 1: these sponsorship deals and everything. Do you think maybe some
Speaker 1: of these companies might have made a mistake if they
Speaker 1: are going to be giving her money. She can't really
Speaker 1: even generate a minor audience lifts right the projects. So
Speaker 1: what's she going to do for your brand?
Speaker 7: If the audience aren't watching that World Exclusive interview, as
Speaker 7: Sophie says, are they going to buy the products or
Speaker 7: go on the troops orways brands are going to drop
Speaker 7: her or not with pretending to never met her or whatever.
Speaker 7: But I think they'll be looking very carefully at their contracts.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and particularly the audience relationship with her. The connotation
Speaker 1: is quite negative, so it's not even really as if
Speaker 1: she's beloved by Australians. A lot of people are quite
Speaker 1: annoyed that she was selected and to your point, put
Speaker 1: over dancers that may have been better.
Speaker 7: Unfortunately, in Australia we still idolize our Olympic athletes, and
Speaker 7: for good reason, and Paralympic athletes especially. So to have
Speaker 7: somebod who's gone to the Olympics that we see as
Speaker 7: a figure of fun is not good for the brand
Speaker 7: and not good for children coming through in.
Speaker 1: Such a good point. And these paralympians who are just
Speaker 1: on TV right now just doing the most remarkable things.
Speaker 1: Where's their sponsorship deal? And sixteen project interview? Yes, when
Speaker 1: you put it through that lens, it's really off pointing.
Speaker 1: You know, this person's talentless. We've got all these others
Speaker 1: we should be championing. But anyway, let's move on now
Speaker 1: to the US election. Because Kamala Harris has come under
Speaker 1: fire for seemingly shifting her identity based on her audience.
Speaker 1: Have a listen to this rally in Detroit and pay
Speaker 1: close attention to the accent.
Speaker 5: You better thank a union member for the five day
Speaker 5: work week. You better thank a union member for sickly.
Speaker 5: You better thank a union member for paid leave.
Speaker 4: You better thank a union member for vacation time.
Speaker 1: Now, have a look at how Harris normally talks at rallies.
Speaker 4: Bank unions precickly, bank unions for pay family leave, Thank
Speaker 4: unions for your vacation time.
Speaker 1: Well, the contrast sparked this awkward moment at a media
Speaker 1: briefing with White House Secretary Karine Jean Pierre, when she
Speaker 1: refused to entertain a question from US journalist Peter Doucy.
Speaker 3: When does the Vice president have what sounds like a
Speaker 3: Southern accent?
Speaker 5: No idea what you're talking about?
Speaker 1: Well, I mean this is she was talking about unions
Speaker 1: in Detroit using one tone of voice.
Speaker 5: Is this something the same line? Okay?
Speaker 7: Peter? That she she used the same line in Pittsburgh,
Speaker 7: and it sounded like she at least had some kind
Speaker 7: of a southern at all.
Speaker 5: I mean, do you hear the question that I mean,
Speaker 5: do you think Americans seriously think that this is an
Speaker 5: important question? They care, you know, what they care about.
Speaker 5: They care about the economy, they care about lowering cost
Speaker 5: they care about healthcare. That's what Americans care about. So
Speaker 5: that's what they want. Well, this is something care about.
Speaker 5: Your colleague just asked me about what basically we talked about,
Speaker 5: went back and forth about democracy and freedom. That's what
Speaker 5: they care about. I'm not even going to entertain some
Speaker 5: question about the present. It's just it's just hearing it
Speaker 5: sounds so ridiculous. Well, but hearing it is. The question
Speaker 5: I'm talking about. The questions is just insane. How she
Speaker 5: talks in meetings. I'm just Peter. We're moving on.
Speaker 1: So if you let me bring you in here. Two
Speaker 1: things I want to discuss from some of those clips. One,
Speaker 1: it's the identity issues that are plaguing the campaign. And
Speaker 1: you've got the Democrats who are suggesting it's potentially racist
Speaker 1: to point out that there is a bit of shape
Speaker 1: shifting going on, that this personality is morphing depending who
Speaker 1: Krmala Harris is around. But then you've got the Press
Speaker 1: Secretary Karein Jean Pierre, and she is buffering away any questions,
Speaker 1: refusing to entertain it, suggesting that it's more important to
Speaker 1: talk about democracy. I mean, these people should be able
Speaker 1: to answer these questions firstly, but also is it not
Speaker 1: fair enough that we can listen to reality watch and
Speaker 1: see that clearly there is an accent being put on.
Speaker 1: Is that controversial?
Speaker 9: Well, I really think people can make up their own
Speaker 9: minds no matter how much spin you try and put
Speaker 9: on this. The American public is not stupid, so they
Speaker 9: will make up their own minds regardless of what they
Speaker 9: are told. But Kamala Harris is constantly under attack. You know,
Speaker 9: she's known for her laughing, sometimes repeating her lines over
Speaker 9: and over again before they become tiresome. She giggles when
Speaker 9: she tries to avoid questions, so she's often ridiculed for
Speaker 9: her way of handling the media. And this is obviously
Speaker 9: a problem because she has done, as we know to date,
Speaker 9: very few media interviews apart from that one sit down
Speaker 9: to date that she did last week. So I think
Speaker 9: she has to be careful with the way that she
Speaker 9: puts her messages out there to the American public because
Speaker 9: this is an easy way for the Republicans to criticize her.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's a really good point. And look, the only
Speaker 1: thing that it demonstrates is there is a degree of
Speaker 1: it being a little bit fake, And I do think
Speaker 1: it's a mistake to focus too much on it as
Speaker 1: being like this massive issue with her just demonstrates it's
Speaker 1: kind of you know, how genuine are you? But there's
Speaker 1: also contradictions that emerge in her policies, such as from
Speaker 1: a border perspective, what she did with the current administration,
Speaker 1: which she is part of, what is she going to
Speaker 1: do now? And to Sophie's point, if she doesn't bring
Speaker 1: herself forward to do some of these more critical interviews
Speaker 1: and that's not what we saw last week with that
Speaker 1: CNN one, then these aren't probed and we're kind of
Speaker 1: just living this lie that this person can shape shift
Speaker 1: without criticism. You can't draw any attention to it. Otherwise
Speaker 1: you're the one who's being immoral.
Speaker 7: Well that's right, Shoot, the messenger isn't it to lux
Speaker 7: But I think when she's in those sort of forums
Speaker 7: where she's talking to a mass group of potential voters,
Speaker 7: just be herself. They want to know what she's going
Speaker 7: to be like what her policies are, what she going
Speaker 7: to do if she's actually elected to the job a president,
Speaker 7: but she doesn't give that information away. Instead, it's sort
Speaker 7: of silly voices and it's quite patronizing in that, and
Speaker 7: a lot.
Speaker 1: A lot of slogans too, And she's talking to union
Speaker 1: crowds at both of those clips. Very real people, very
Speaker 1: real people, but it's a bit more patronizing to kind
Speaker 1: of put on the voice that you think someone in
Speaker 1: Detroit might respond to me exactly.
Speaker 7: Or maybe it's some sort of bizarre skit from her
Speaker 7: influencer mates who are going to sort of pump out
Speaker 7: and say hashtag just like us. I don't know. It's
Speaker 7: it's just a waste of time for the people who
Speaker 7: were there because they want to know what her policies are.
Speaker 7: And maybe it is a ruse to cover up the
Speaker 7: fact that she doesn't really have any authentic policies at
Speaker 7: this stage.
Speaker 5: That we're aware of.
Speaker 1: It's a really good point, and Sophie just finally on this.
Speaker 1: Do you think that the media in the US, for
Speaker 1: the most part, is scrutinizing her enough or do you
Speaker 1: think that we're in a situation where many people are
Speaker 1: just trying to walk her through to this job.
Speaker 9: Well, I think it's hard to scrutinize her at the
Speaker 9: moment because she's not doing a lot publicly, so it's
Speaker 9: just looking back at what she has done as vice president.
Speaker 9: So the less media she does, the obviously, the less
Speaker 9: chance there is that she trips up, and there's less
Speaker 9: fodder for the media to work with, which makes their
Speaker 9: job difficult. But as we know, in the American media,
Speaker 9: it is largely left leaning and they will be hoping
Speaker 9: that she wins the presidential race.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and I'm sure there's probably a lot of good
Speaker 1: journalists there as well that are quite annoyed that there
Speaker 1: is this collective blind eye going on. But look, we're
Speaker 1: going to take a quick break when we return inside
Speaker 1: a scandal at the Age Newspaper. Welcome back now to
Speaker 1: a scandal at the Age in Melbourne, after legendary cartoonist
Speaker 1: Michael Lunig has revealed he is now embarrassed to be
Speaker 1: associated with the paper after he was sacked ending his
Speaker 1: fifty five year career at the Masthead. Now, Sophie Elseworth,
Speaker 1: you wrote about this in your media diary this week.
Speaker 1: Tell us a little bit about the backstory of this feud.
Speaker 9: Michael Lunik is one of the nation's most famous cartoonists,
Speaker 9: and he ended his fifty five year career at the
Speaker 9: Age last week. He was pushed out of their news
Speaker 9: pages a couple of years ago during the COVID pandemic
Speaker 9: when he was criticizing Victorian Premier Dan Andrews for his
Speaker 9: harsh lockdown measures and also the push for people to
Speaker 9: be vaccinated against COVID, and many of his cartoons, about
Speaker 9: a dozen were not published by the Age. But let's
Speaker 9: have a listen to a little bit of what Michael
Speaker 9: Lunik had to say.
Speaker 8: There are these stories we were asked to sort of support,
Speaker 8: I guess not directly asked, but I mean it was
Speaker 8: in part we would stick to the general narrative, and
Speaker 8: that also includes this thing they called the Woke Marrow
Speaker 8: to the fullest inclusion and diversity.
Speaker 9: It's so Michael Luhnig was pretty unimpressed with the way
Speaker 9: he was being treated at the Age and he was
Speaker 9: subsequently pushed out of the news pages to file one
Speaker 9: cartoon a week for the Spectrum section. But then his
Speaker 9: tenure at the Age was ended last week and Patrick Elliget,
Speaker 9: the editor of the Age sent an email round to
Speaker 9: subscribers to say Luonic had left, and he was pretty
Speaker 9: irate about this, said he's treatment at the Age was
Speaker 9: not very good. He said his work was not being
Speaker 9: published because it didn't fit in with the Age's views
Speaker 9: on the COVID pandemic. So it's been a relationship spanning
Speaker 9: six decades that has ended pretty badly.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's such an interesting story, Louise, because I listened
Speaker 1: to that full interview by the ABC. Was a really
Speaker 1: good interview, and I think the host did a great
Speaker 1: job kind of extracting some of Michael's experiences. It seemed
Speaker 1: to be that there was this very censorious attitude to
Speaker 1: some of the no go their topics. So you've got
Speaker 1: the COVID lockdowns obviously, anything to do with vaccines, anything
Speaker 1: that was against the narrative, and this, to me, it's
Speaker 1: everything that a modern intellectual newspaper should want to push against.
Speaker 1: You know, you've got a premiere who's locking people in
Speaker 1: their homes. The science behind some of those strategies very
Speaker 1: very dubious, and it was one of them. Was there
Speaker 1: even any science do under And shouldn't that be the
Speaker 1: place of the journalist to push back against people stripping
Speaker 1: people of civil liberties, particularly a left leaning paper. I
Speaker 1: found that quite disturbing. There were allegations that they were
Speaker 1: killing off cartoons because they didn't fit the narrative. I
Speaker 1: think the Age has to respond to some of this.
Speaker 7: I agree, because you would think in that sort of
Speaker 7: left leaning environment that a bit of a protagonist in
Speaker 7: the form of a cartoonist would thrive because you could really,
Speaker 7: you know, push the boundaries. Why shouldn't he attack Dan
Speaker 7: Andrews about his policy at the time, because everyone else
Speaker 7: in Melbourne was complaining about them. And also, cartoonists are
Speaker 7: a very rare and precious creature in a newsroom as well.
Speaker 7: They can encapsulate a story or a feeling or a
Speaker 7: sentiment in one beautiful sketch. So the fact that they've
Speaker 7: gone after him and got rid of him, it does
Speaker 7: not bode well for other creatives I think in the
Speaker 7: industry too. I mean, his point is to be a protagonist.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and now removed him. Toe the line or you
Speaker 1: don't have a place in our paper. These issues don't
Speaker 1: have a place to be debated. It's not right. And
Speaker 1: also he doesn't even necessarily have to attack Sometimes it's
Speaker 1: just satire, but it's uncomfortable satire and it makes sure think, Yeah.
Speaker 7: You think, and that's the point of exact place. And
Speaker 7: as I said, they're precious, So any attacks on there
Speaker 7: might I think personally as a journalist.
Speaker 1: Yeah, very very disappointing stuff by the Age. But let's
Speaker 1: move on now to the National Broadcaster with a really
Speaker 1: bizarre story about staff being told to lose the Q
Speaker 1: and I when talking about the lgb t QI community. Now, Sophie,
Speaker 1: this was your scoop. What on earth is the ABC
Speaker 1: doing having this lengthy editorial discussion publicly? I mean, is
Speaker 1: this really what mainstream Australians want the National Broadcast be
Speaker 1: focusing on whether Q Queeri intersex is involved in the LGBT.
Speaker 1: It's very abstract, isn't it.
Speaker 9: Well they sent around a note last week Jack and
Speaker 9: I reported on this in The Australian. I put questions
Speaker 9: to the ABC's corporate affairs team about the use of
Speaker 9: this language. They failed to respond to me. But I
Speaker 9: see today in the Guardian they've attacked my story and
Speaker 9: criticized it with failing to come back to me last week.
Speaker 9: So pretty appalling stuff from the corporate affairs team, but
Speaker 9: they are obviously concerned about the language that is used
Speaker 9: within the ABC and sending out directions to staff. So
Speaker 9: I stand by my reporting on that, and the Australian
Speaker 9: public can make up their own minds when they see
Speaker 9: that the ABC is spending time on changing directions in
Speaker 9: editorial guidance to their employees.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that editorial comms unit run by Nick lays that
Speaker 1: they do that a lot. To you, it's very weird.
Speaker 1: I think it's quite unprofessional considering it's a taxpayer funded
Speaker 1: body and your job is to extract information and give
Speaker 1: it to the public, just like we would do with
Speaker 1: a hospital or school policies, any kind of statutory organization.
Speaker 1: It's what we do as journalists. They're very defensive, particularly
Speaker 1: when Sophie gets into them. So well done, Sophie, keep
Speaker 1: keep the fire up. But this story here about you know,
Speaker 1: telling them to get rid of the queue and the eye.
Speaker 1: I just think this is everything that's wrong with the ABC.
Speaker 1: It's they're focusing on these obscure niche issues and editorially,
Speaker 1: why aren't we looking at how we're tackling language around
Speaker 1: cost of living or the political debates You're getting lost
Speaker 1: in the weeds.
Speaker 7: I mean, it's not a good use of taxpayer money
Speaker 7: to be tweaking in acronyms really, and also, as spoke
Speaker 7: about earlier, sort of removing a whole part of community
Speaker 7: by actually making it a shorter acronym as well. Why
Speaker 7: aren't we talking about cost of living? Because you can
Speaker 7: guarantee everyone else they're watching the ABC or listening to
Speaker 7: it or reading newspapers is thinking about cost of living,
Speaker 7: particularly with what the staffs between the RBA and mister
Speaker 7: Charlmers this week.
Speaker 1: Yeah, definitely, Well let's move on to Stories of the Week, Sophie,
Speaker 1: what do you have for us?
Speaker 9: So the Australians podcast broadwhen I highly recommend the viewers
Speaker 9: have a listen to this. It's coming back for a
Speaker 9: second series at the end of the month. New South
Speaker 9: Wales Police have asked for more information following revelations in
Speaker 9: the podcast about this cold case of Bronwin Winfield who
Speaker 9: went missing in the nineteen nineties. So pretty extraordinary stuff
Speaker 9: and well worth a listen.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's a brilliant body of work, some really great stuff.
Speaker 1: I love the recreation of the car that you guys
Speaker 1: did with AI and imagery. It was fantastic, and yeah,
Speaker 1: let's move on your story of the week.
Speaker 7: I quite like a story that Adele put out on
Speaker 7: her Instagram page where she did a sort of mock
Speaker 7: front page of herself riding around London on a bike,
Speaker 7: a complete non story, but I think her point was
Speaker 7: to say that, you know, the tabloid the dirty tabloid press,
Speaker 7: if she likes to call them, are always riding about
Speaker 7: me and then inanities of my life. So I'm actually
Speaker 7: going to put that content out myself. So it was
Speaker 7: a bit sort of tongue in cheek. I know celebrities
Speaker 7: love to attack the press, but I thought it was
Speaker 7: it was quite funny what she did.
Speaker 1: It's a very clever way of doing it, isn't it.
Speaker 5: It is you.
Speaker 1: We'll probably see a little bit more of that.
Speaker 7: I know she's not afraid to speak her mind, because
Speaker 7: she certainly waded into that Raygun debut, didn't she rather.
Speaker 1: Yeah, that was very funny. Stop the whole concert for it, Louise, Sophie,
Speaker 1: thank you so much for joining me. Fortunately, that's all
Speaker 1: the time that we have for tonight, but we'll be
Speaker 1: back the same time next week.