WEBVTT - The Media Show | 6 September 0:00:00.800 --> 0:00:06.000 This is the Media Show with Jack outing, Hello and 0:00:06.040 --> 0:00:08.680 welcome to the Media Show. Tonight. We'll discuss a scandal 0:00:08.680 --> 0:00:12.039 of the Age newspaper and much more. But first, it 0:00:12.080 --> 0:00:16.400 was once unbelievably the biggest story in the world, but 0:00:16.480 --> 0:00:19.760 the Project's interview with breakdowns of Raygun was just a 0:00:19.840 --> 0:00:21.200 sixteen minute flop. 0:00:22.720 --> 0:00:23.799 How are you doing? 0:00:25.040 --> 0:00:30.920 Yeah, it's been a pretty wild ride. I'm not gonna lie. 0:00:31.200 --> 0:00:34.920 I definitely have my ups and downs, my good and 0:00:35.000 --> 0:00:39.839 bad days. But it has been honestly so amazing to 0:00:39.920 --> 0:00:44.600 see the positive response to my performance. Like I never 0:00:44.720 --> 0:00:47.839 thought that I would be able to connect with so 0:00:47.960 --> 0:00:50.040 many people in such a positive way. 0:00:51.680 --> 0:00:55.040 It was billed as a world exclusive, but despite the 0:00:55.160 --> 0:00:58.960 hype and previous global obsession with the story, the publicity 0:00:59.160 --> 0:01:03.280 didn't really move the needle. TV Tonight reports the project 0:01:03.280 --> 0:01:07.280 interview draws world headlines, but no season high. It drew 0:01:07.319 --> 0:01:11.000 three hundred and forty three thousand viewers a national TV audience, 0:01:11.280 --> 0:01:13.840 which is probably down on what ten was hoping for. 0:01:14.240 --> 0:01:17.720 That number is only on par with last Wednesdays three 0:01:17.840 --> 0:01:21.320 hundred and thirty nine thousand, but no chance to spook 0:01:21.480 --> 0:01:24.640 as a season high. We heard the project was happy 0:01:24.640 --> 0:01:27.000 with the social media performance, But when we last checked 0:01:27.040 --> 0:01:29.920 the full interview on YouTube, it only had one hundred 0:01:29.920 --> 0:01:32.920 and sixty thousand views. To put that in comparison, just 0:01:33.000 --> 0:01:36.000 three weeks ago, a two minute clip on Reygun published 0:01:36.000 --> 0:01:38.880 to the Sky News YouTube page has been viewed more 0:01:38.920 --> 0:01:42.800 than ten million times. So why has the public interest 0:01:42.880 --> 0:01:46.800 dropped off so significantly? Well, digital audiences move on fast. 0:01:47.120 --> 0:01:49.840 Trends can be now hourly, and people like Reyguan who 0:01:49.920 --> 0:01:52.640 take the world by storm one day can be completely 0:01:52.760 --> 0:01:56.360 old news by the time pr contracts assigned and deals 0:01:56.360 --> 0:01:59.400 and negotiated. But of course another reason for the lack 0:01:59.440 --> 0:02:03.000 of interest could be the quality of content itself. Host 0:02:03.080 --> 0:02:05.480 will Lee Ali did ask a few tough questions like 0:02:05.560 --> 0:02:06.160 this one. 0:02:07.200 --> 0:02:10.919 Genuinely think you are the best female breaker in Australia. 0:02:13.200 --> 0:02:18.959 Well, I think my record speaks to that, But he 0:02:19.040 --> 0:02:22.280 also didn't push back against very cringe moments like this, 0:02:22.560 --> 0:02:25.240 where Raygan admitted that she was loving the fame her 0:02:25.360 --> 0:02:28.400 humiliating performance had afforded her. 0:02:29.080 --> 0:02:31.200 The upside is you get. 0:02:33.639 --> 0:02:37.040 Random people with contacting you that you never thought would 0:02:37.080 --> 0:02:40.440 ever notice you, you know, And it's not just like 0:02:40.600 --> 0:02:44.560 breakers that you've respected for you know, a decade. It's 0:02:44.600 --> 0:02:48.600 someone like Sir Richard Branson calling you to say that 0:02:48.680 --> 0:02:52.160 he enjoyed your performance and he thought that you. 0:02:52.400 --> 0:02:56.040 It was plucky and courageous and fun. 0:02:56.200 --> 0:03:00.400 And you know he would love to, you know, do 0:03:00.560 --> 0:03:03.520 something with me and have me on some cruises with 0:03:03.639 --> 0:03:08.080 boy George, Like. 0:03:08.160 --> 0:03:09.040 What is life? 0:03:09.320 --> 0:03:09.800 I don't know? 0:03:13.960 --> 0:03:14.080 Well. 0:03:14.160 --> 0:03:16.400 Joining me on the show this week is the Australians 0:03:16.520 --> 0:03:20.880 media writer Sophie Elsworth and Sky News contributor Louise Roberts. Luise, 0:03:20.919 --> 0:03:23.880 thanks for joining us. Let's start with you to go 0:03:24.080 --> 0:03:27.040 from this thing where you've got Jimmy Fallon is doing 0:03:27.080 --> 0:03:30.720 skits about her it's a global sensation, to barely being 0:03:30.760 --> 0:03:31.680 able to get a bump. 0:03:31.720 --> 0:03:31.880 You know. 0:03:31.880 --> 0:03:35.480 It's maybe five k more viewers than the previous week. 0:03:35.880 --> 0:03:38.200 To me, it shows that just the appetite for this 0:03:38.240 --> 0:03:40.440 woman has completely fallen off a cliff. What do you 0:03:40.440 --> 0:03:40.840 make of it? 0:03:40.880 --> 0:03:41.280 I agree? 0:03:41.320 --> 0:03:43.160 I think the interview was done too long after the 0:03:43.200 --> 0:03:45.960 actual event itself. But also there wasn't anything new or 0:03:46.080 --> 0:03:48.160 kind of spiky that came in the interview because it 0:03:48.280 --> 0:03:50.280 was so soft. I mean, the question I wanted to 0:03:50.320 --> 0:03:52.720 answered is are you going to say sorry to a 0:03:52.760 --> 0:03:55.760 talented dancer whose place that you took the fact that 0:03:56.000 --> 0:03:58.840 somebody could have actually got points and won, And how 0:03:58.880 --> 0:04:01.440 do you feel about sort of base disarming and insulting 0:04:01.480 --> 0:04:04.320 the whole breakdancing community. There was no sense of humility 0:04:04.480 --> 0:04:05.480 or anything. 0:04:05.760 --> 0:04:07.440 There was a lot of laughs and yeah, you're right, 0:04:07.480 --> 0:04:09.880 because there was that Sophie, let's bring you in here 0:04:09.920 --> 0:04:12.360 as well. There was footage that came out of that 0:04:12.480 --> 0:04:15.320 number two dancer and the qualifier Holly Molly, who was 0:04:15.600 --> 0:04:20.000 dancing very well, and some people said, gee, clearly there's 0:04:20.040 --> 0:04:23.800 probably some better breakdancers. It didn't really seem like her 0:04:23.839 --> 0:04:28.080 skill was prosecuted that thoroughly by Willie Alli, and it 0:04:28.200 --> 0:04:30.520 kind of turned into a bit of you know, smiles, 0:04:30.800 --> 0:04:34.320 a bit lighthearted, but there were some serious questions to 0:04:34.400 --> 0:04:37.920 be asked around Reagan because she was flown over to Paris, 0:04:37.960 --> 0:04:41.239 she was representing Australia and then she's kind of laughing 0:04:41.279 --> 0:04:44.560 about hanging out with Richard Branson and boy George. I 0:04:44.600 --> 0:04:46.280 thought it was a bit off putting. What's your take 0:04:46.320 --> 0:04:46.560 of this? 0:04:49.240 --> 0:04:53.040 Well, it was billed as a world exclusive and Network 0:04:53.120 --> 0:04:56.960 ten were certainly pumping it up, but I don't think 0:04:57.000 --> 0:04:59.640 that it had the impact that they certainly hoped it 0:04:59.640 --> 0:05:04.080 would achieve, and those rating figures prove that it didn't 0:05:04.120 --> 0:05:09.320 really shed any new light on much about her, and 0:05:09.360 --> 0:05:14.160 she didn't really seem to be that humiliated by what 0:05:14.320 --> 0:05:18.479 many would argue was a pretty dismal performance at the 0:05:18.520 --> 0:05:22.640 Olympic Games. And then she sort of joked about the 0:05:22.680 --> 0:05:26.400 fallout from it, making those references with Richard Branson. So 0:05:26.880 --> 0:05:30.480 I think the interview didn't really hit the mark, and 0:05:30.520 --> 0:05:33.600 I think it left a lot of people pretty disinterested. 0:05:34.240 --> 0:05:37.400 And I think she has had her fifteen minutes of 0:05:37.440 --> 0:05:40.000 fame and many people have now moved on. 0:05:40.640 --> 0:05:42.800 Yeah, it's a really good point. And to your earlier point, 0:05:42.839 --> 0:05:45.479 it was it took too long. It did, and so 0:05:45.560 --> 0:05:47.640 I think this is a lesson from a public relations 0:05:47.680 --> 0:05:50.680 point of view. You've got so she signed up for 0:05:50.839 --> 0:05:53.240 these sponsorship deals and everything. Do you think maybe some 0:05:53.240 --> 0:05:55.880 of these companies might have made a mistake if they 0:05:55.920 --> 0:05:59.560 are going to be giving her money. She can't really 0:05:59.640 --> 0:06:04.080 even generate a minor audience lifts right the projects. So 0:06:04.080 --> 0:06:05.239 what's she going to do for your brand? 0:06:05.240 --> 0:06:07.680 If the audience aren't watching that World Exclusive interview, as 0:06:07.720 --> 0:06:11.400 Sophie says, are they going to buy the products or 0:06:11.440 --> 0:06:13.279 go on the troops orways brands are going to drop 0:06:13.279 --> 0:06:15.279 her or not with pretending to never met her or whatever. 0:06:15.320 --> 0:06:18.160 But I think they'll be looking very carefully at their contracts. 0:06:18.400 --> 0:06:21.880 Yeah, and particularly the audience relationship with her. The connotation 0:06:22.000 --> 0:06:24.440 is quite negative, so it's not even really as if 0:06:24.480 --> 0:06:26.920 she's beloved by Australians. A lot of people are quite 0:06:27.160 --> 0:06:29.599 annoyed that she was selected and to your point, put 0:06:29.680 --> 0:06:32.679 over dancers that may have been better. 0:06:33.240 --> 0:06:36.520 Unfortunately, in Australia we still idolize our Olympic athletes, and 0:06:36.600 --> 0:06:39.839 for good reason, and Paralympic athletes especially. So to have 0:06:39.880 --> 0:06:41.560 somebod who's gone to the Olympics that we see as 0:06:41.560 --> 0:06:43.200 a figure of fun is not good for the brand 0:06:43.200 --> 0:06:44.680 and not good for children coming through in. 0:06:44.960 --> 0:06:47.120 Such a good point. And these paralympians who are just 0:06:47.200 --> 0:06:49.560 on TV right now just doing the most remarkable things. 0:06:49.600 --> 0:06:54.520 Where's their sponsorship deal? And sixteen project interview? Yes, when 0:06:54.560 --> 0:06:56.880 you put it through that lens, it's really off pointing. 0:06:56.960 --> 0:07:00.279 You know, this person's talentless. We've got all these others 0:07:00.279 --> 0:07:03.000 we should be championing. But anyway, let's move on now 0:07:03.040 --> 0:07:06.160 to the US election. Because Kamala Harris has come under 0:07:06.160 --> 0:07:10.640 fire for seemingly shifting her identity based on her audience. 0:07:11.040 --> 0:07:12.960 Have a listen to this rally in Detroit and pay 0:07:13.040 --> 0:07:14.679 close attention to the accent. 0:07:15.880 --> 0:07:21.480 You better thank a union member for the five day 0:07:21.680 --> 0:07:25.560 work week. You better thank a union member for sickly. 0:07:25.960 --> 0:07:28.520 You better thank a union member for paid leave. 0:07:28.960 --> 0:07:31.880 You better thank a union member for vacation time. 0:07:33.680 --> 0:07:36.800 Now, have a look at how Harris normally talks at rallies. 0:07:37.920 --> 0:07:44.960 Bank unions precickly, bank unions for pay family leave, Thank 0:07:45.080 --> 0:07:46.800 unions for your vacation time. 0:07:48.400 --> 0:07:51.320 Well, the contrast sparked this awkward moment at a media 0:07:51.360 --> 0:07:55.000 briefing with White House Secretary Karine Jean Pierre, when she 0:07:55.080 --> 0:07:59.360 refused to entertain a question from US journalist Peter Doucy. 0:08:00.160 --> 0:08:03.000 When does the Vice president have what sounds like a 0:08:03.120 --> 0:08:04.040 Southern accent? 0:08:04.360 --> 0:08:05.880 No idea what you're talking about? 0:08:06.200 --> 0:08:09.800 Well, I mean this is she was talking about unions 0:08:09.840 --> 0:08:13.360 in Detroit using one tone of voice. 0:08:13.560 --> 0:08:15.640 Is this something the same line? Okay? 0:08:15.640 --> 0:08:18.720 Peter? That she she used the same line in Pittsburgh, 0:08:18.800 --> 0:08:20.400 and it sounded like she at least had some kind 0:08:20.440 --> 0:08:21.520 of a southern at all. 0:08:21.680 --> 0:08:23.520 I mean, do you hear the question that I mean, 0:08:23.560 --> 0:08:26.480 do you think Americans seriously think that this is an 0:08:26.480 --> 0:08:28.600 important question? They care, you know, what they care about. 0:08:29.080 --> 0:08:31.880 They care about the economy, they care about lowering cost 0:08:32.160 --> 0:08:35.520 they care about healthcare. That's what Americans care about. So 0:08:35.960 --> 0:08:38.079 that's what they want. Well, this is something care about. 0:08:38.120 --> 0:08:41.280 Your colleague just asked me about what basically we talked about, 0:08:41.280 --> 0:08:44.439 went back and forth about democracy and freedom. That's what 0:08:44.480 --> 0:08:47.480 they care about. I'm not even going to entertain some 0:08:47.720 --> 0:08:51.640 question about the present. It's just it's just hearing it 0:08:51.720 --> 0:08:56.240 sounds so ridiculous. Well, but hearing it is. The question 0:08:56.320 --> 0:09:00.440 I'm talking about. The questions is just insane. How she 0:09:00.559 --> 0:09:05.319 talks in meetings. I'm just Peter. We're moving on. 0:09:09.440 --> 0:09:11.199 So if you let me bring you in here. Two 0:09:11.280 --> 0:09:14.400 things I want to discuss from some of those clips. One, 0:09:14.679 --> 0:09:19.360 it's the identity issues that are plaguing the campaign. And 0:09:19.400 --> 0:09:24.320 you've got the Democrats who are suggesting it's potentially racist 0:09:24.360 --> 0:09:26.000 to point out that there is a bit of shape 0:09:26.000 --> 0:09:30.040 shifting going on, that this personality is morphing depending who 0:09:30.160 --> 0:09:33.240 Krmala Harris is around. But then you've got the Press 0:09:33.240 --> 0:09:38.480 Secretary Karein Jean Pierre, and she is buffering away any questions, 0:09:38.520 --> 0:09:42.319 refusing to entertain it, suggesting that it's more important to 0:09:42.320 --> 0:09:47.319 talk about democracy. I mean, these people should be able 0:09:47.360 --> 0:09:50.960 to answer these questions firstly, but also is it not 0:09:51.080 --> 0:09:55.520 fair enough that we can listen to reality watch and 0:09:55.600 --> 0:09:58.120 see that clearly there is an accent being put on. 0:09:58.800 --> 0:09:59.840 Is that controversial? 0:10:03.120 --> 0:10:05.280 Well, I really think people can make up their own 0:10:05.320 --> 0:10:08.560 minds no matter how much spin you try and put 0:10:08.600 --> 0:10:12.640 on this. The American public is not stupid, so they 0:10:12.640 --> 0:10:15.080 will make up their own minds regardless of what they 0:10:15.080 --> 0:10:20.320 are told. But Kamala Harris is constantly under attack. You know, 0:10:20.400 --> 0:10:24.600 she's known for her laughing, sometimes repeating her lines over 0:10:24.679 --> 0:10:29.480 and over again before they become tiresome. She giggles when 0:10:29.520 --> 0:10:33.240 she tries to avoid questions, so she's often ridiculed for 0:10:33.320 --> 0:10:37.240 her way of handling the media. And this is obviously 0:10:37.280 --> 0:10:40.360 a problem because she has done, as we know to date, 0:10:40.840 --> 0:10:44.800 very few media interviews apart from that one sit down 0:10:45.480 --> 0:10:48.160 to date that she did last week. So I think 0:10:48.240 --> 0:10:50.920 she has to be careful with the way that she 0:10:51.280 --> 0:10:54.679 puts her messages out there to the American public because 0:10:54.720 --> 0:10:59.559 this is an easy way for the Republicans to criticize her. 0:11:00.080 --> 0:11:02.080 Yeah, it's a really good point. And look, the only 0:11:02.120 --> 0:11:04.439 thing that it demonstrates is there is a degree of 0:11:04.440 --> 0:11:06.959 it being a little bit fake, And I do think 0:11:06.960 --> 0:11:09.880 it's a mistake to focus too much on it as 0:11:09.960 --> 0:11:13.160 being like this massive issue with her just demonstrates it's 0:11:13.240 --> 0:11:16.080 kind of you know, how genuine are you? But there's 0:11:16.120 --> 0:11:20.400 also contradictions that emerge in her policies, such as from 0:11:20.440 --> 0:11:24.040 a border perspective, what she did with the current administration, 0:11:24.160 --> 0:11:26.600 which she is part of, what is she going to 0:11:26.640 --> 0:11:30.040 do now? And to Sophie's point, if she doesn't bring 0:11:30.080 --> 0:11:32.680 herself forward to do some of these more critical interviews 0:11:32.679 --> 0:11:35.520 and that's not what we saw last week with that 0:11:35.640 --> 0:11:39.000 CNN one, then these aren't probed and we're kind of 0:11:39.040 --> 0:11:41.840 just living this lie that this person can shape shift 0:11:42.040 --> 0:11:46.520 without criticism. You can't draw any attention to it. Otherwise 0:11:46.600 --> 0:11:48.040 you're the one who's being immoral. 0:11:48.160 --> 0:11:50.240 Well that's right, Shoot, the messenger isn't it to lux 0:11:50.320 --> 0:11:52.320 But I think when she's in those sort of forums 0:11:52.320 --> 0:11:54.880 where she's talking to a mass group of potential voters, 0:11:55.000 --> 0:11:57.719 just be herself. They want to know what she's going 0:11:57.720 --> 0:11:59.839 to be like what her policies are, what she going 0:11:59.880 --> 0:12:03.000 to do if she's actually elected to the job a president, 0:12:03.040 --> 0:12:05.520 but she doesn't give that information away. Instead, it's sort 0:12:05.520 --> 0:12:08.240 of silly voices and it's quite patronizing in that, and 0:12:08.280 --> 0:12:08.640 a lot. 0:12:08.559 --> 0:12:11.080 A lot of slogans too, And she's talking to union 0:12:11.080 --> 0:12:14.600 crowds at both of those clips. Very real people, very 0:12:14.640 --> 0:12:17.520 real people, but it's a bit more patronizing to kind 0:12:17.520 --> 0:12:19.400 of put on the voice that you think someone in 0:12:19.440 --> 0:12:22.040 Detroit might respond to me exactly. 0:12:22.200 --> 0:12:23.920 Or maybe it's some sort of bizarre skit from her 0:12:23.960 --> 0:12:25.959 influencer mates who are going to sort of pump out 0:12:26.000 --> 0:12:29.240 and say hashtag just like us. I don't know. It's 0:12:29.320 --> 0:12:31.719 it's just a waste of time for the people who 0:12:31.720 --> 0:12:33.559 were there because they want to know what her policies are. 0:12:33.559 --> 0:12:35.120 And maybe it is a ruse to cover up the 0:12:35.120 --> 0:12:37.800 fact that she doesn't really have any authentic policies at 0:12:37.800 --> 0:12:38.600 this stage. 0:12:38.320 --> 0:12:38.960 That we're aware of. 0:12:39.080 --> 0:12:41.520 It's a really good point, and Sophie just finally on this. 0:12:41.679 --> 0:12:44.080 Do you think that the media in the US, for 0:12:44.120 --> 0:12:47.839 the most part, is scrutinizing her enough or do you 0:12:47.880 --> 0:12:50.040 think that we're in a situation where many people are 0:12:50.040 --> 0:12:51.760 just trying to walk her through to this job. 0:12:54.400 --> 0:12:57.120 Well, I think it's hard to scrutinize her at the 0:12:57.200 --> 0:13:01.040 moment because she's not doing a lot publicly, so it's 0:13:01.120 --> 0:13:05.240 just looking back at what she has done as vice president. 0:13:05.320 --> 0:13:09.559 So the less media she does, the obviously, the less 0:13:09.679 --> 0:13:13.040 chance there is that she trips up, and there's less 0:13:13.240 --> 0:13:16.520 fodder for the media to work with, which makes their 0:13:16.640 --> 0:13:20.240 job difficult. But as we know, in the American media, 0:13:20.360 --> 0:13:24.520 it is largely left leaning and they will be hoping 0:13:25.040 --> 0:13:27.120 that she wins the presidential race. 0:13:27.679 --> 0:13:29.280 Yeah, and I'm sure there's probably a lot of good 0:13:29.320 --> 0:13:31.800 journalists there as well that are quite annoyed that there 0:13:31.880 --> 0:13:34.800 is this collective blind eye going on. But look, we're 0:13:34.800 --> 0:13:37.000 going to take a quick break when we return inside 0:13:37.040 --> 0:13:43.480 a scandal at the Age Newspaper. Welcome back now to 0:13:43.520 --> 0:13:46.839 a scandal at the Age in Melbourne, after legendary cartoonist 0:13:46.880 --> 0:13:49.520 Michael Lunig has revealed he is now embarrassed to be 0:13:49.559 --> 0:13:52.440 associated with the paper after he was sacked ending his 0:13:52.520 --> 0:13:56.600 fifty five year career at the Masthead. Now, Sophie Elseworth, 0:13:56.800 --> 0:14:00.000 you wrote about this in your media diary this week. 0:14:00.280 --> 0:14:02.400 Tell us a little bit about the backstory of this feud. 0:14:05.320 --> 0:14:09.640 Michael Lunik is one of the nation's most famous cartoonists, 0:14:09.640 --> 0:14:13.040 and he ended his fifty five year career at the 0:14:13.120 --> 0:14:17.640 Age last week. He was pushed out of their news 0:14:17.760 --> 0:14:21.480 pages a couple of years ago during the COVID pandemic 0:14:21.800 --> 0:14:25.600 when he was criticizing Victorian Premier Dan Andrews for his 0:14:25.720 --> 0:14:30.360 harsh lockdown measures and also the push for people to 0:14:30.400 --> 0:14:34.960 be vaccinated against COVID, and many of his cartoons, about 0:14:34.960 --> 0:14:38.080 a dozen were not published by the Age. But let's 0:14:38.120 --> 0:14:40.120 have a listen to a little bit of what Michael 0:14:40.160 --> 0:14:41.440 Lunik had to say. 0:14:43.040 --> 0:14:47.560 There are these stories we were asked to sort of support, 0:14:47.680 --> 0:14:50.720 I guess not directly asked, but I mean it was 0:14:50.760 --> 0:14:56.600 in part we would stick to the general narrative, and 0:14:56.600 --> 0:15:00.280 that also includes this thing they called the Woke Marrow 0:15:00.360 --> 0:15:04.080 to the fullest inclusion and diversity. 0:15:04.120 --> 0:15:10.120 It's so Michael Luhnig was pretty unimpressed with the way 0:15:10.840 --> 0:15:13.400 he was being treated at the Age and he was 0:15:13.440 --> 0:15:17.000 subsequently pushed out of the news pages to file one 0:15:17.120 --> 0:15:20.960 cartoon a week for the Spectrum section. But then his 0:15:21.640 --> 0:15:25.920 tenure at the Age was ended last week and Patrick Elliget, 0:15:25.960 --> 0:15:28.320 the editor of the Age sent an email round to 0:15:28.400 --> 0:15:31.800 subscribers to say Luonic had left, and he was pretty 0:15:31.840 --> 0:15:34.920 irate about this, said he's treatment at the Age was 0:15:34.960 --> 0:15:37.680 not very good. He said his work was not being 0:15:37.720 --> 0:15:41.560 published because it didn't fit in with the Age's views 0:15:41.600 --> 0:15:45.720 on the COVID pandemic. So it's been a relationship spanning 0:15:45.840 --> 0:15:48.720 six decades that has ended pretty badly. 0:15:49.720 --> 0:15:54.360 Yeah, it's such an interesting story, Louise, because I listened 0:15:54.360 --> 0:15:56.440 to that full interview by the ABC. Was a really 0:15:56.440 --> 0:15:58.360 good interview, and I think the host did a great 0:15:58.440 --> 0:16:02.360 job kind of extracting some of Michael's experiences. It seemed 0:16:02.360 --> 0:16:05.320 to be that there was this very censorious attitude to 0:16:05.400 --> 0:16:07.800 some of the no go their topics. So you've got 0:16:07.960 --> 0:16:12.640 the COVID lockdowns obviously, anything to do with vaccines, anything 0:16:12.760 --> 0:16:15.920 that was against the narrative, and this, to me, it's 0:16:16.000 --> 0:16:20.400 everything that a modern intellectual newspaper should want to push against. 0:16:20.440 --> 0:16:22.560 You know, you've got a premiere who's locking people in 0:16:22.600 --> 0:16:26.840 their homes. The science behind some of those strategies very 0:16:26.960 --> 0:16:29.920 very dubious, and it was one of them. Was there 0:16:29.960 --> 0:16:32.920 even any science do under And shouldn't that be the 0:16:32.920 --> 0:16:36.640 place of the journalist to push back against people stripping 0:16:36.680 --> 0:16:41.040 people of civil liberties, particularly a left leaning paper. I 0:16:41.080 --> 0:16:44.000 found that quite disturbing. There were allegations that they were 0:16:44.080 --> 0:16:48.040 killing off cartoons because they didn't fit the narrative. I 0:16:48.040 --> 0:16:49.840 think the Age has to respond to some of this. 0:16:50.080 --> 0:16:52.120 I agree, because you would think in that sort of 0:16:52.160 --> 0:16:55.480 left leaning environment that a bit of a protagonist in 0:16:55.520 --> 0:16:58.160 the form of a cartoonist would thrive because you could really, 0:16:58.640 --> 0:17:01.080 you know, push the boundaries. Why shouldn't he attack Dan 0:17:01.160 --> 0:17:03.240 Andrews about his policy at the time, because everyone else 0:17:03.280 --> 0:17:06.040 in Melbourne was complaining about them. And also, cartoonists are 0:17:06.040 --> 0:17:09.359 a very rare and precious creature in a newsroom as well. 0:17:09.640 --> 0:17:11.840 They can encapsulate a story or a feeling or a 0:17:11.880 --> 0:17:14.600 sentiment in one beautiful sketch. So the fact that they've 0:17:14.600 --> 0:17:16.760 gone after him and got rid of him, it does 0:17:16.760 --> 0:17:19.159 not bode well for other creatives I think in the 0:17:19.160 --> 0:17:21.680 industry too. I mean, his point is to be a protagonist. 0:17:21.960 --> 0:17:24.760 Yeah, and now removed him. Toe the line or you 0:17:24.800 --> 0:17:27.960 don't have a place in our paper. These issues don't 0:17:27.960 --> 0:17:31.080 have a place to be debated. It's not right. And 0:17:31.119 --> 0:17:33.680 also he doesn't even necessarily have to attack Sometimes it's 0:17:33.720 --> 0:17:37.400 just satire, but it's uncomfortable satire and it makes sure think, Yeah. 0:17:37.560 --> 0:17:39.720 You think, and that's the point of exact place. And 0:17:39.760 --> 0:17:41.600 as I said, they're precious, So any attacks on there 0:17:41.680 --> 0:17:43.879 might I think personally as a journalist. 0:17:44.000 --> 0:17:46.520 Yeah, very very disappointing stuff by the Age. But let's 0:17:46.560 --> 0:17:48.920 move on now to the National Broadcaster with a really 0:17:48.960 --> 0:17:52.359 bizarre story about staff being told to lose the Q 0:17:52.560 --> 0:17:58.200 and I when talking about the lgb t QI community. Now, Sophie, 0:17:58.200 --> 0:18:01.400 this was your scoop. What on earth is the ABC 0:18:01.680 --> 0:18:06.439 doing having this lengthy editorial discussion publicly? I mean, is 0:18:06.480 --> 0:18:09.840 this really what mainstream Australians want the National Broadcast be 0:18:09.880 --> 0:18:15.880 focusing on whether Q Queeri intersex is involved in the LGBT. 0:18:16.800 --> 0:18:18.359 It's very abstract, isn't it. 0:18:21.000 --> 0:18:23.800 Well they sent around a note last week Jack and 0:18:23.840 --> 0:18:27.080 I reported on this in The Australian. I put questions 0:18:27.080 --> 0:18:31.280 to the ABC's corporate affairs team about the use of 0:18:31.320 --> 0:18:35.479 this language. They failed to respond to me. But I 0:18:35.520 --> 0:18:39.080 see today in the Guardian they've attacked my story and 0:18:39.160 --> 0:18:43.520 criticized it with failing to come back to me last week. 0:18:43.640 --> 0:18:47.600 So pretty appalling stuff from the corporate affairs team, but 0:18:47.800 --> 0:18:51.280 they are obviously concerned about the language that is used 0:18:51.320 --> 0:18:55.000 within the ABC and sending out directions to staff. So 0:18:55.320 --> 0:18:58.639 I stand by my reporting on that, and the Australian 0:18:58.680 --> 0:19:01.840 public can make up their own minds when they see 0:19:01.960 --> 0:19:05.960 that the ABC is spending time on changing directions in 0:19:06.200 --> 0:19:08.679 editorial guidance to their employees. 0:19:09.040 --> 0:19:12.399 Yeah, that editorial comms unit run by Nick lays that 0:19:12.440 --> 0:19:15.200 they do that a lot. To you, it's very weird. 0:19:15.320 --> 0:19:18.600 I think it's quite unprofessional considering it's a taxpayer funded 0:19:18.600 --> 0:19:21.920 body and your job is to extract information and give 0:19:21.960 --> 0:19:23.840 it to the public, just like we would do with 0:19:24.760 --> 0:19:28.639 a hospital or school policies, any kind of statutory organization. 0:19:29.040 --> 0:19:32.639 It's what we do as journalists. They're very defensive, particularly 0:19:32.640 --> 0:19:35.800 when Sophie gets into them. So well done, Sophie, keep 0:19:36.200 --> 0:19:39.080 keep the fire up. But this story here about you know, 0:19:39.320 --> 0:19:41.400 telling them to get rid of the queue and the eye. 0:19:41.720 --> 0:19:43.479 I just think this is everything that's wrong with the ABC. 0:19:43.680 --> 0:19:48.720 It's they're focusing on these obscure niche issues and editorially, 0:19:49.119 --> 0:19:52.080 why aren't we looking at how we're tackling language around 0:19:52.080 --> 0:19:54.320 cost of living or the political debates You're getting lost 0:19:54.359 --> 0:19:54.960 in the weeds. 0:19:55.400 --> 0:19:57.320 I mean, it's not a good use of taxpayer money 0:19:57.320 --> 0:20:00.280 to be tweaking in acronyms really, and also, as spoke 0:20:00.320 --> 0:20:03.400 about earlier, sort of removing a whole part of community 0:20:03.440 --> 0:20:06.399 by actually making it a shorter acronym as well. Why 0:20:06.440 --> 0:20:08.000 aren't we talking about cost of living? Because you can 0:20:08.000 --> 0:20:10.560 guarantee everyone else they're watching the ABC or listening to 0:20:10.600 --> 0:20:13.520 it or reading newspapers is thinking about cost of living, 0:20:13.560 --> 0:20:17.320 particularly with what the staffs between the RBA and mister 0:20:17.400 --> 0:20:18.240 Charlmers this week. 0:20:18.480 --> 0:20:21.200 Yeah, definitely, Well let's move on to Stories of the Week, Sophie, 0:20:21.240 --> 0:20:21.960 what do you have for us? 0:20:24.600 --> 0:20:29.399 So the Australians podcast broadwhen I highly recommend the viewers 0:20:29.400 --> 0:20:31.280 have a listen to this. It's coming back for a 0:20:31.320 --> 0:20:33.720 second series at the end of the month. New South 0:20:33.760 --> 0:20:39.240 Wales Police have asked for more information following revelations in 0:20:39.240 --> 0:20:44.159 the podcast about this cold case of Bronwin Winfield who 0:20:44.240 --> 0:20:48.399 went missing in the nineteen nineties. So pretty extraordinary stuff 0:20:48.600 --> 0:20:50.080 and well worth a listen. 0:20:50.520 --> 0:20:54.000 Yeah, it's a brilliant body of work, some really great stuff. 0:20:54.040 --> 0:20:56.320 I love the recreation of the car that you guys 0:20:56.320 --> 0:21:00.280 did with AI and imagery. It was fantastic, and yeah, 0:21:00.359 --> 0:21:01.560 let's move on your story of the week. 0:21:01.600 --> 0:21:03.560 I quite like a story that Adele put out on 0:21:03.640 --> 0:21:06.120 her Instagram page where she did a sort of mock 0:21:06.160 --> 0:21:09.200 front page of herself riding around London on a bike, 0:21:09.240 --> 0:21:11.280 a complete non story, but I think her point was 0:21:11.320 --> 0:21:14.400 to say that, you know, the tabloid the dirty tabloid press, 0:21:14.400 --> 0:21:16.639 if she likes to call them, are always riding about 0:21:16.640 --> 0:21:19.040 me and then inanities of my life. So I'm actually 0:21:19.080 --> 0:21:20.840 going to put that content out myself. So it was 0:21:20.880 --> 0:21:22.800 a bit sort of tongue in cheek. I know celebrities 0:21:22.840 --> 0:21:25.520 love to attack the press, but I thought it was 0:21:25.320 --> 0:21:26.600 it was quite funny what she did. 0:21:26.720 --> 0:21:28.280 It's a very clever way of doing it, isn't it. 0:21:28.280 --> 0:21:28.720 It is you. 0:21:28.760 --> 0:21:30.520 We'll probably see a little bit more of that. 0:21:31.680 --> 0:21:34.240