Speaker 1: Vince is the Media Show with Jack.
Speaker 2: Houting Hello and welcome to the Media Show. I'm Jack Houghton,
Speaker 2: and tonight will take a look at the biggest stories
Speaker 2: in the media. But first, this week, the ABC published
Speaker 2: its forty seventh correctional clarification of the year and it
Speaker 2: was reprehensible. When the murderous leader of terror organization Hesmela
Speaker 2: was killed in a drone strike. The ABC got on
Speaker 2: the ground to tell us the real story.
Speaker 3: But one loss loomed especially large over the crowds.
Speaker 4: Today we mourn the death of saith Ha's on loss
Speaker 4: of our love.
Speaker 5: He was the mother who was the father of Lebanon Hip.
Speaker 6: How comfort hip hop security will you when when you
Speaker 6: wanted answers we turned to him.
Speaker 3: After nearly a year of rally's supporting Gaza and now Lebanon,
Speaker 3: many of these protesters say they are sick and tired
Speaker 3: of Israel's attacks on Arab lands and there are again
Speaker 3: calling on the Australian government to apply more to well
Speaker 3: about a pressure and sanction Israel.
Speaker 2: That one minute and forty seven second news report which
Speaker 2: was pushed into the homes of Australians and spread across
Speaker 2: social media reporter Nabil al Nashaf failed to mention that
Speaker 2: the man who was being celebrated was actually a murderous terrorist.
Speaker 2: It was basically a propaganda video promoting the life of
Speaker 2: an evil extremist. Now what I'm about to read is
Speaker 2: extremely confronting, but the Jerusalem Post sought to push back
Speaker 2: against the narrative that this man was some sort of
Speaker 2: hero or freedom fighter. Now, they wrote earlier this month,
Speaker 2: the crimes of his party's men in Syria could fill volumes,
Speaker 2: beginning with the dismemberment of children and women, starving the
Speaker 2: elderly and children to death, besieging civilians, depriving them of
Speaker 2: basic life necessities, looting property, confiscating some lands and burning others.
Speaker 2: Women were raped in front of their husbands, and girls
Speaker 2: in front of their fathers and mothers, all to further
Speaker 2: crush and humiliate their spirits. This and many more unthinkable
Speaker 2: crimes is why Australia and most western countries consider him
Speaker 2: to be the leader of a terrorist organization. Now, you
Speaker 2: would think that the ABC, when confronted with a complaint
Speaker 2: about this news report, would just delete it, apologize and
Speaker 2: offer an explanation. Instead, the ABC issued a correction saying
Speaker 2: the clip had missing context when published digitally because it
Speaker 2: didn't have the advantage of context from the two stories
Speaker 2: which went before it. Now, to solve this tiny problem,
Speaker 2: the ABC put a tiny caption under the video that
Speaker 2: let readers know the man was also a terrorist, but
Speaker 2: the video was not amended to include the detail and
Speaker 2: is still on their website today. And well, we think
Speaker 2: that is pathetic and appalling journalism, which shows that there
Speaker 2: is no accountability at the ABC. Well, joining me on
Speaker 2: the show this week is the Australians media writer Sophie
Speaker 2: Elseweth and Sky and Use contributor Damian Kouri. Now, Sophie,
Speaker 2: let's start with you. This is not just a mistake.
Speaker 2: There was a decision made to omit the fact that
Speaker 2: this terrorist, which is what he was before he was killed,
Speaker 2: was the leader of Hezbollah. Why would they do that?
Speaker 2: And then why would they think a caption, a small
Speaker 2: little caption underneath that is an appropriate way to deal
Speaker 2: with that omission?
Speaker 4: Well, jacket's not acceptable and this is where the ABC
Speaker 4: lets itself down. We pay for the ABC, the Australian
Speaker 4: taxpayers pay for it. They have to be really clear
Speaker 4: in their reporting and this is a critical fact which
Speaker 4: is crucial when reporting this story. And also Jack, the
Speaker 4: fact that they can put out a correction later is
Speaker 4: one step in the right direction. But unfortunately, when you
Speaker 4: have a video, a lot of people are just consuming
Speaker 4: video content. They're not going to be looking elsewhere for
Speaker 4: a correction or amendment somewhere else. They have to change
Speaker 4: the video too to reflect this change, and they have
Speaker 4: not done that, and that I believe is letting down
Speaker 4: the Australian public when they are going to the ABC,
Speaker 4: as many of them probably will, thinking they're a good,
Speaker 4: reliable news source.
Speaker 1: But they're not putting out the real facts here.
Speaker 2: It's such a good point, and Damien, let's bring you in.
Speaker 2: I mean, obviously, the complexities of the situation on the
Speaker 2: ground are numerous. It's a very difficult story to cover.
Speaker 2: But when I watched that video, it was so wholly
Speaker 2: positive and so wholly glowing. And there was even a
Speaker 2: sentence by the reporter himself, not someone that he interviewed,
Speaker 2: when he was talking about calls to sanction Israel, and
Speaker 2: you can only conclude that that call was related to
Speaker 2: them killing this terrorist. To me, I cannot see how
Speaker 2: it could possibly be justified as balanced journalism.
Speaker 7: Well it can't, Jack, I mean, that's the reality of it.
Speaker 7: And the problem with the ABC these days, of course,
Speaker 7: is it's not just a about bias. It's also about
Speaker 7: editorial standards and just the general quality of their journalism
Speaker 7: and the quality of their programming is declining. We pay
Speaker 7: so much attention to the bias question, which is huge
Speaker 7: and is obviously a big problem still, that we're not
Speaker 7: noticing the fact that it's just getting god awful, that
Speaker 7: the ABC is actually just pretty bad these days. If
Speaker 7: you go back to the olden days, we used to joke,
Speaker 7: you know about you know, the story breaks on page
Speaker 7: one of the newspaper and the corrections on page sixty
Speaker 7: four the next day. That's exactly what so few were
Speaker 7: sort of alluding to there, with the fact that, you know,
Speaker 7: the correction is never as prominent or as widely seen
Speaker 7: as the original error, so the damage is already done.
Speaker 7: The problem, of course, a bias does exist at the ABC.
Speaker 7: It exists explicitly and culturally. If you want to talk
Speaker 7: about systemic problems in media organizations, I think the ABC
Speaker 7: has got the biggest systemic problem in terms of its culture.
Speaker 7: But there is definitely a bias coming through. And we
Speaker 7: know that bias is done in journalism through mission as
Speaker 7: much as it's done through inclusion. So this is a
Speaker 7: case of hideous bias biomission, extremely obvious bias biomission, and
Speaker 7: it should lead to know how many times is it's
Speaker 7: going to go on. How many times are we going
Speaker 7: to sit here and have this conversation. It is time
Speaker 7: for a clear policy on the ABC. It is time
Speaker 7: for clear review. The culture stinks and it can't be fixed.
Speaker 7: It has to be There has to be radical breakthrough
Speaker 7: kind of change and that's what we need to see.
Speaker 7: The leadership from Peter Dutton on this very loud and clear, I.
Speaker 2: Think yeah, and Kim Williams as well. Look, Damien makes
Speaker 2: incredibly good points about how it is systemic. The fact
Speaker 2: that you've essentially got a tax pay funded organization praising
Speaker 2: a terrorist that happened. Whether they like it or not,
Speaker 2: it was glowing if you look at it from a
Speaker 2: tone point of view. The fact that they're not mentioning
Speaker 2: that he was a terrorist responsible for all those crimes
Speaker 2: over the three decades that he was in charge of
Speaker 2: that terror cell. Kim Williams has said that he does
Speaker 2: not want these youngjournalists with partisan views to be using
Speaker 2: the ABC as their platform to essentially be bloggers. Words
Speaker 2: to that effect and paraphrasing a bit. He does not
Speaker 2: seem capable, no share, seems to be able to rain
Speaker 2: in this body. Does someone like Peter Dutton need to
Speaker 2: come in and make some kind of broader policy change
Speaker 2: about the ABC?
Speaker 4: Well, Jack Kim Williams has come out and said earlier
Speaker 4: in the year, if you don't want to be impartial,
Speaker 4: don't work at the ABC. It's very clear he's also
Speaker 4: stirring up a bit of a hornet's nest because there
Speaker 4: are changes underway in the ABC he is causing. He's
Speaker 4: ruffling feathers in there and some people don't like it,
Speaker 4: but I think he's trying to create some change now.
Speaker 1: When it comes to.
Speaker 4: The issue of the coalition, they were in power for
Speaker 4: nearly ten years before mister Albanezi became Prime Minister.
Speaker 1: They didn't do much at all about the ABC.
Speaker 4: So it's all well and good for the conservative side
Speaker 4: of politics to winge and complain about the time tax
Speaker 4: payer fund and broadcaster, but what did they do when
Speaker 4: they're in office?
Speaker 1: Extremely little.
Speaker 4: So this is a problem that is so widespread that
Speaker 4: it has to come from within the organization and not forgetting.
Speaker 4: We are seeing the exit of managing director David Anderson
Speaker 4: in the new year, and I think that could potentially
Speaker 4: shake things up if they get someone external, not just
Speaker 4: an ABC lifer.
Speaker 2: Such a good point about it, but I still think
Speaker 2: there's a lot of conservative politicians that don't quite get
Speaker 2: how bad it is and how a lot of it
Speaker 2: is a barracking against their own side, against their own arguments.
Speaker 2: It's a huge problem. Some are waking up, but we'll
Speaker 2: keep an eye on it. Let's move on now, because
Speaker 2: Carmala Harris is struggling in the polls, which has prompted
Speaker 2: the presidential hopeful to go on the attack. Now there's
Speaker 2: talks of Harris even doing a lengthy sit down with
Speaker 2: podcast to Joe Rogan, as her team seems to realize
Speaker 2: that she is running out of time to sell her
Speaker 2: message to the American people. And it might be why
Speaker 2: Harris this week decided to was sit down with Fox
Speaker 2: News and to point out why this was such a
Speaker 2: big deal. Harris has never done a Fox interview before,
Speaker 2: and maybe she should have kept it that way.
Speaker 5: Your campaign slogan is a new way forward, and it's
Speaker 5: time to turn the page. You've been vice president for
Speaker 5: three and a half years. So what are you turning
Speaker 5: the page from.
Speaker 6: Well, first of all, turning the page from the last
Speaker 6: decade in which we have been burdened with the kind
Speaker 6: of rhetoric coming from Donald Trump that has been designed
Speaker 6: and implemented to divide our country.
Speaker 2: Ah turning the page from the previous previous administration. It
Speaker 2: doesn't make much sense, does it. And she also missed
Speaker 2: the opportunity to look forward and define her campaign. Instead,
Speaker 2: her answer seemed to boil down to I'm not Donald Trump.
Speaker 2: She also appeared to not be prepared now answers on
Speaker 2: her immigration plan. They clearly lacked substance and details.
Speaker 5: Voters tell polsters all over the country and here in
Speaker 5: Pennsylvania that immigration is one of the key issues that
Speaker 5: they're looking at this election, and specifically the influx of
Speaker 5: illegal immigrants from more than one hundred and fifty countries.
Speaker 5: How many illegal immigrants would you estimate your administration has
Speaker 5: released into the country over the last three and a
Speaker 5: half years.
Speaker 6: Well, I'm glad you raised the issue of immigration because
Speaker 6: I agree with you. It is a topic of discussion
Speaker 6: that people want to rightly have. We have a broken
Speaker 6: immigration system that needs to be repaired.
Speaker 5: So your Homeland Security secretary said that eighty percent of apprehension.
Speaker 1: I'm not finished.
Speaker 5: We have a refreshment of six million people have been released.
Speaker 2: And when Harris got flustered, she resorted to fear in
Speaker 2: her mind, Donald Trump was going to start locking up
Speaker 2: his adversaries.
Speaker 6: He has talked about locking people up because they disagree
Speaker 6: with him. This is a democracy, and in a democracy,
Speaker 6: the president of the United States, in the United States
Speaker 6: of America should be willing to be able to handle
Speaker 6: criticism without saying he'd lock people up.
Speaker 1: For doing it.
Speaker 2: Ironically, the courts and legal system have clearly been weaponized
Speaker 2: against Trump in a way which is anti democratic. But
Speaker 2: you won't hear Harris talk about that. And my favorite
Speaker 2: moment of all in this interview is watching Harris struggle
Speaker 2: to explain why she told the biggest lie of the
Speaker 2: left that Joe Biden was mentally fit to be in office.
Speaker 5: Ask you this, and you told me many interviewers that
Speaker 5: Joe Biden was on his game, that ran around circles
Speaker 5: on his staff. When did you first notice that President
Speaker 5: Biden's mental faculties appeared diminished.
Speaker 6: Joe Biden. I have watched in from the Oval office
Speaker 6: to the situation room, and he has the judgment and
Speaker 6: the experiment and experienced to do exactly what he has
Speaker 6: done in making very important decisions on behalf of the
Speaker 6: American people. Joe Biden is not valid. I understand Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: Donald Trump, we talked about it, and Donald.
Speaker 5: Trump, you didn't have any concerns.
Speaker 6: I think the American people have a concern about Donald Trump.
Speaker 2: Damian, let's bring you in Joe Biden. He has the
Speaker 2: experiment to do what he has done. Wise words, what
Speaker 2: do you think about that interview?
Speaker 7: Well, it's classic Kamala Harris word salad. And what was
Speaker 7: different about this interview was it was with an adversarial
Speaker 7: sort of interviewer. Wasn't a softball interview, and he challenged
Speaker 7: her on the usual key messages. Now, one of the
Speaker 7: things that we teach people in PR and media training
Speaker 7: is that you should go to your key message. But
Speaker 7: the bit that she misses is that the key message
Speaker 7: has to have some deaths, it has to have some substance,
Speaker 7: and it has to address the underlying concerns of the audience,
Speaker 7: and she kept going back to this key message about
Speaker 7: Donald Trump blocking this legislation they were trying to get
Speaker 7: through on the board, which is irrelevant in the context
Speaker 7: of the fact that she had absolute power. Let's remember
Speaker 7: the Democrats had the House, they had Congress, they had
Speaker 7: the Senate as well, they had the executive There was
Speaker 7: nothing stopping her in the first two years of hers
Speaker 7: her vice presidency in driving an agenda on the border
Speaker 7: and getting stuff done. And she's trying to say that
Speaker 7: the bill that was brought in nine months ago that
Speaker 7: was somehow allegedly blocked by Trump is ridiculous. Six Democrats
Speaker 7: voted against that bill, by the way. But even today,
Speaker 7: even in the second two years of their term, when
Speaker 7: they didn't have the House majority, they still can do
Speaker 7: executive orders. The president, the vice president can write executive orders.
Speaker 7: So there's absolutely no excuse. She can't say I didn't
Speaker 7: have power to do this. And so what she was
Speaker 7: bridging to in her answer there was a lie, and
Speaker 7: Brett Byer, very rightly was the first journalist to call
Speaker 7: her out on it. I'd like to see a lot
Speaker 7: more of that. I hope she really does do.
Speaker 2: Joe Rogan, Yeah, well, that would be that would be
Speaker 2: a phenomenal interview. I think everyone would like to see that.
Speaker 2: Damien raises a really good point about I guess whether
Speaker 2: someone is battle hardened because they've done adversarial interviews, and
Speaker 2: because she hasn't done it, she was so out of
Speaker 2: her depth. She's so used to doing these sixty minute interviews, Sophie,
Speaker 2: where clearly there are people that are on her side,
Speaker 2: they're not going to push back, and she's not used
Speaker 2: to that. Then, whereas sa jd Vance, he gets it.
Speaker 2: Every single time he goes and holds a press conference,
Speaker 2: it's water for ducks back. He gets smashed so often
Speaker 2: by the media that he is battle hardened. And I
Speaker 2: think that's a huge mistake politicians make when they hide themselves,
Speaker 2: they make themselves ill equipped.
Speaker 8: Will.
Speaker 4: This looked like a car crash interview Jack, where she
Speaker 4: was mumbling, she wasn't making sense, and she just kept
Speaker 4: going back to the old argument Donald Trump is not.
Speaker 1: Well, he's a bit crazy, et cetera, et cetera.
Speaker 4: The questions are about Joe Biden and they were really important,
Speaker 4: and that was her opportunity to seize the moment and
Speaker 4: get out her.
Speaker 2: Sort it goes to her a character as well, Sophie,
Speaker 2: and she's trying to say, well, I'm not Joe Biden,
Speaker 2: but it goes to your character. If you told people
Speaker 2: that he was okay, and clearly he wasn't, why did
Speaker 2: you tell people?
Speaker 4: But she wouldn't answer that question directly, Jack, She dodged
Speaker 4: it and then went on to Donald Trump, Americans are
Speaker 4: not stupid.
Speaker 1: Now.
Speaker 4: She did that interview to try and persuade people who
Speaker 4: are Republican voters to vote for her and also capture
Speaker 4: that group of Americans who are undecided, and I think
Speaker 4: she came out far worse off.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, Damian, would you agree with that? Do
Speaker 2: you think that people would be less likely or more
Speaker 2: likely to vote for her after watching that?
Speaker 6: Well?
Speaker 7: Look, I think the media is so partisan in America
Speaker 7: that I wonder how many swinging voters actually would be
Speaker 7: watching fongs and thinking about, you know, changing their vote
Speaker 7: as a result of that. And if you was, probably
Speaker 7: a few. And I can understand the strategy of wanting
Speaker 7: to do that and step into the lines then because
Speaker 7: it'll spread on social media and go through other channels
Speaker 7: as well. So yeah, I mean, it's not a bad strategy.
Speaker 7: If you can pull it off and if you've got
Speaker 7: something to say. But if your only answer is I'm
Speaker 7: not Joe Biden and I'm not Donald Trump, and you
Speaker 7: don't have a message that is well who are you?
Speaker 6: What are you?
Speaker 7: What do you stand for? It leaves people to think, well,
Speaker 7: I could be anything you want me to be. Boys
Speaker 7: and girls, just make me president, please, you know, And
Speaker 7: that's what people are looking for in a leader, you know.
Speaker 7: With with Trump, I mean, he may not be that articulate, right,
Speaker 7: He's not probably as grammatically correct. He waffles, he rambles,
Speaker 7: he goes off on tangents all the time, and he
Speaker 7: lies by hyperbole and exaggeration, but you get a sense
Speaker 7: you know what you're buying, right, you know that Donald
Speaker 7: what Donald Trump stands for, what his policies are going
Speaker 7: to be. And that's what the public want. They want
Speaker 7: that sense of confidence in knowing what the product is
Speaker 7: that they're that they're voting for and what they're going
Speaker 7: to get at the end of the day. And with
Speaker 7: Kamala Harris, you just don't know.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's a good point. She spent a big chunk
Speaker 2: of the interview denying positions she'd had just five years
Speaker 2: ago by saying, well that was five years ago. Five
Speaker 2: I mean, this isn't that long. Policy shifts anyway. We're
Speaker 2: going to take a quick break, but when we're back
Speaker 2: inside nine Publishings culture crisis. Welcome back now to turmoil
Speaker 2: at nine Publishing after the release of its culture review,
Speaker 2: which found bosses in nine's broadcast division would belittle, intimidate,
Speaker 2: gas light, and sexually harass employees, and when complaints were
Speaker 2: made against management, HR would cover it up. Many journalists
Speaker 2: and newsrooms around the country stopped what they were doing
Speaker 2: yesterday afternoon as the lengthy report was released, which detailed
Speaker 2: these disturbing findings, and credit to the City Morning Herald
Speaker 2: for dedicating a front page to the story, which implicated
Speaker 2: its own management and leadership team and even the HR
Speaker 2: bosses who were supposed to be keeping people safe. Punishment
Speaker 2: island was a term that most people at nine were
Speaker 2: familiar with. It was used to describe being frozen out
Speaker 2: by a toxic boss, and some women allege this happened
Speaker 2: to those who complained about bad behavior. The stories were
Speaker 2: so sobering for nine staff to read it led to
Speaker 2: moments like this from one of their top on air stars,
Speaker 2: a quick.
Speaker 6: Word on all this.
Speaker 8: I genuinely, genuinely feel for the women who have given testimony.
Speaker 8: I can't imagine how hard that was and the courage
Speaker 8: that it took. Many people are hurting. They feel like,
Speaker 8: what was the point of speaking out if perpetrators are
Speaker 8: not called out? I asked the same question yesterday and
Speaker 8: it's my understanding. Several investigations are now underway, and we
Speaker 8: have to be patient for the process of all that.
Speaker 8: It's essential and it's critical.
Speaker 2: Stefanovic makes a good point. Allegations have been made against
Speaker 2: current managers, yet there does not seem to be accountability,
Speaker 2: at least at this stage. Let's bring the panel in
Speaker 2: to discuss Sophie Elsworth this. I don't know if you've
Speaker 2: managed to get through most of this report, but it
Speaker 2: does make for quite a sobering read. Karl Stefanovic raises
Speaker 2: a really interesting point, and I think a lot of
Speaker 2: staff were wondering this. I know Shahi spoke to some
Speaker 2: people and did this up on her show as well,
Speaker 2: who were saying, well, hang on, we've got all of
Speaker 2: these allegations against current managers, but they're still our managers.
Speaker 2: How does that work?
Speaker 4: So Jack We spoke yesterday to many staff, both former
Speaker 4: and existing staff at nine who took part in the review.
Speaker 4: They've really disappointed with this because they feel, and I'm
Speaker 4: speaking broadly here, that there are people within the organizations
Speaker 4: still there in very senior roles with allegations of misconduct
Speaker 4: against them. So this has opened up an enormous can
Speaker 4: of worms for nine Entertainment. They announced this review in May.
Speaker 4: Now they're saying, you know, we've gone through the whole process,
Speaker 4: We've implemented or implementing twenty two recommendations, and we move on.
Speaker 1: It's far from moving on. This is a giant headache
Speaker 1: for them.
Speaker 4: There could even be court cases that come out of this,
Speaker 4: or legal action that comes out of this. There's a
Speaker 4: long way to go in this process, but there's a
Speaker 4: lot of very unhappy people in there that they feel
Speaker 4: some of the people that have had multiple complaints about
Speaker 4: them are still working in the business.
Speaker 2: Yeah, Damien, let's bring you in. That's very problematic when
Speaker 2: you've got the company where essentially a lot of the
Speaker 2: people that are going to have to investigate these are
Speaker 2: in HR who do appear to have allegations against them themselves,
Speaker 2: which and that seems to be at the core of
Speaker 2: a lot of this that when the complaint is made,
Speaker 2: hr was not necessarily acting in the best interest of
Speaker 2: the complainant and seeking to legitimately find out what was
Speaker 2: going on, but it was more a carpet brushing exercise,
Speaker 2: which now you know that's the same team. Presumably there's
Speaker 2: obviously been a little bit of move and everything at
Speaker 2: the top, But how are they going to be able
Speaker 2: to do that while keeping in mind that people are
Speaker 2: entitled to due process and you know, they do need
Speaker 2: to investigate it thoroughly. It's very tricky.
Speaker 7: It is very tricky, and it's something that's impacting not
Speaker 7: just the media industry. I mean, we see it more
Speaker 7: clearly in the media industry, I guess because it's a
Speaker 7: more public industry. But this is the sort of thing
Speaker 7: that a lot of companies are wrestling with at the moment.
Speaker 7: How do you police this stuff? And it is extraordinarily
Speaker 7: complicated because it can't be allowed to continue. I can
Speaker 7: tell you that back in the olden days in the
Speaker 7: newsrooms of Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane in the eighties and nineties,
Speaker 7: when I was kicking around as a young journalist, the
Speaker 7: culture was terrible. I mean, there was one prominent news
Speaker 7: director in one particular city at one particular networker who
Speaker 7: was known for sort of rocking up to work late
Speaker 7: afternoon drunk after lunch and screaming at all of the
Speaker 7: reporters and staff and was known to have sexually harassed
Speaker 7: and this was ignored. And so there had to be
Speaker 7: a seismic cultural change occur in the television and broadcast
Speaker 7: news industry and maybe even the print news industry. There's
Speaker 7: no question about that. The problems that we've got these days, though,
Speaker 7: are layered. Right. We've got this situation, we've really got
Speaker 7: to try and have some kind of recourse. There has
Speaker 7: to be an opportunity for people to so there has
Speaker 7: to be some sort of panel or some sort of
Speaker 7: I don't know, tribunal set up that enables these people
Speaker 7: who've been accused to get their fair day in court,
Speaker 7: to put their case back and say, well, you know,
Speaker 7: this is what happened, and this is the part of
Speaker 7: the process that's lacking, which kind of leaves us in
Speaker 7: this horrible Salem witch hunt kind of territory where it's
Speaker 7: like I can just accuse somebody and we do live
Speaker 7: in a culture now where the pendulum has swung a
Speaker 7: bit and false accusation becomes an issue, right because who
Speaker 7: likes their boss? Not many people like their boss. Not
Speaker 7: many people like being told, you know, when they've done
Speaker 7: something wrong or scolded at work. And I'm not saying
Speaker 7: that's the case here in any way, but it does
Speaker 7: and can happen. So you do have to have a
Speaker 7: way for people to kind of defend themselves. Not all
Speaker 7: criticism is bullying, and not all you know, banter in
Speaker 7: the office is inappropriate harassment. So you know, it's where
Speaker 7: you draw the line what sort of culture are you fostering.
Speaker 7: But if you've got the HR team and the HR
Speaker 7: team aren't even across it, well, yeah, you've got some
Speaker 7: pretty deep problems happening, and that's clearly what's going on here.
Speaker 2: Definitely, Damian Sophie, thank you so much for joining us.
Speaker 2: Unfortunately that's all the time we have for tonight, but
Speaker 2: thank you for joining us. We'll be back next Friday
Speaker 2: at the same time.