Speaker 1: Welcome to Stars and Gripes, where we highlight those in
Speaker 1: the US media who have shread all pretense of ethical
Speaker 1: reporting to become activists. And first to the Associated Press
Speaker 1: and MSNBC, two newsrooms which have knowingly published misinformation about
Speaker 1: the Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard to make it
Speaker 1: look like she is POWs with Putin.
Speaker 2: Just today, Tulsey Gabbert said that Putin and Trump are
Speaker 2: quote very good friends.
Speaker 1: The Associated Press made the same reckless and false claims,
Speaker 1: leading to the story eventually being deleted. The New York
Speaker 1: Post had the details. The Associated Press has retracted a
Speaker 1: story published Monday which wrongly claimed that the Director of
Speaker 1: National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard said that President Donald Trump and
Speaker 1: Russian President Vladimir Putin were good friends. The story was
Speaker 1: false because Gabbard was talking about Trump and Indian Prime
Speaker 1: Minister Norenda Mody, not Putin. MSNBC then had to air
Speaker 1: this humiliating correction.
Speaker 2: Last night, we reported on excerpts of an interview between
Speaker 2: the Director of National Intelligence Telsa Gabbard and an Indian
Speaker 2: TV news network in which she said that Trump was
Speaker 2: good friends with a world leader. We said that world
Speaker 2: leader was Vladimir Putin that the full interview shows that
Speaker 2: Gabbard was referring to Trump an Indian prime minister mody.
Speaker 3: We'll clear that up.
Speaker 4: Well.
Speaker 1: As one critic of this saga noted online, the media
Speaker 1: is always loud when making the original allegation, an oddly
Speaker 1: quiet when correcting the record. Let's bring in Sky New's
Speaker 1: contributor Kosha Garda to discuss this was a shoka and
Speaker 1: it was a shaka that you have to assume that
Speaker 1: it was knowingly done because it was so obvious listening
Speaker 1: to it and reading the transcript that that's not what
Speaker 1: she was saying at all.
Speaker 4: So the only conclusion you.
Speaker 1: Can draw is mass incompetence or they've just knowingly verbaled
Speaker 1: her in the worst possible way.
Speaker 5: Yes, I think that those are the two correct endpoints
Speaker 5: of the spectrum there for sure. That either it's mass
Speaker 5: incompetence and just sort of a laziness. Maybe that the
Speaker 5: people fronting these brands rely wholly on staff to put
Speaker 5: together the talking points that they read off the teleprompter
Speaker 5: and don't do their own work or don't apply their
Speaker 5: own common sense check all the way to the other end,
Speaker 5: that it's something a little bit more nefarious and deliberate,
Speaker 5: you know. I think the big picture is not pretty
Speaker 5: because it just underscores that much of the mainstream media
Speaker 5: is still caught up in the Russia Mania, which was
Speaker 5: a big theme in Trump's first term, and that's why
Speaker 5: they were so quick to leap to that conclusion. I
Speaker 5: will say that I'll give them a little bit more
Speaker 5: credit than years past, noting that's a low bar in
Speaker 5: terms of the prominence of the correction because in the past,
Speaker 5: you know, whether it was a hunter Byden laptop story
Speaker 5: or Russia Mania, or giving themselves Pulitzer Prizes for their
Speaker 5: reporting on the Russia hoax and all the rest of it,
Speaker 5: there were no retractions or corrections actually from many things
Speaker 5: that are still up there versus now. Stephanie Rule of
Speaker 5: MSNBC did actually use airtime on her next day's show
Speaker 5: to correct that, and the AP took down the story
Speaker 5: with the correction on the bottom, so it's not living
Speaker 5: on in the internet. I find that a little bit
Speaker 5: interesting that it's a small improvement, but maybe Trump and
Speaker 5: Maga world are finally cracking through a little bit and
Speaker 5: slightly shifting the way they operate in the mainstream media.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I totally agree with you. I think that there's
Speaker 1: been a slight switch. I think it's being more prominent
Speaker 1: on CNN than MSNBC. America is in the grips of
Speaker 1: domestic terror attacks on Tesla vehicles, but some in the
Speaker 1: media have disgustingly been cheering on this violence as some
Speaker 1: sort of legitimate form of resistance. But before we get
Speaker 1: to that, it's important to see the scale of the damage.
Speaker 4: That we were talking about.
Speaker 6: Some breaking news that we are following for you this hour,
Speaker 6: and this has to do with these Tesla attacks that
Speaker 6: we have been seeing in recent weeks. We now are
Speaker 6: learning that Attorney General Pambondi has announced charges against three
Speaker 6: people in domestic terrorism attacks on Tesla's Three people accused
Speaker 6: of destroying Tesla cars and charging stations are now facing
Speaker 6: up to twenty years in prison for domestic terrorism. US
Speaker 6: Attorney in General Pambondi announced just moments ago. She said
Speaker 6: in a statement as well, the days of committing crimes
Speaker 6: without consequence have ended. Let this be a warning if
Speaker 6: you join this wave of domestic terrorism against Tesla properties,
Speaker 6: the Department of Justice will put you behind bars.
Speaker 1: If you blow up the cause of innocent, random people.
Speaker 1: Because of ideology, you are a terrorist. It's not simple.
Speaker 1: Even now, ABC here in Australia has conceded the attacks
Speaker 1: have the whole marks of terrorism. But listen to the
Speaker 1: language from mainstream yet hardcore activist journalists who are encouraging
Speaker 1: Americans to resist the Trump present and see and protest
Speaker 1: a private company not even linked to the government. They
Speaker 1: call the protests remarkable and organic.
Speaker 3: There's something really remarkable happening right now. I'm not sure
Speaker 3: people have really quite gotten their arms around this. We
Speaker 3: are seeing this organic, bottom up movement against Muss signature
Speaker 3: company Tesla. Some activists just put up a website with
Speaker 3: a simple message, right sell your Tesla's dump your stock,
Speaker 3: and then an entire Tesla takedown movement has sprung up
Speaker 3: in response. They've got a map where all the protests
Speaker 3: are planned all across the country. It's been happening for
Speaker 3: about a month. This weekend alone, there are more than
Speaker 3: one hundred protests planned at dealerships Tesla dealerships across the country,
Speaker 3: from Brooklyn to Toledo, Dallas to Grand Rapids, Raleigh, dozens
Speaker 3: more there. Even as you might see, they're a handful
Speaker 3: planned in Candon in the UK, and I'm going to
Speaker 3: tell you something. I wager next weekend there will be
Speaker 3: even more in the weekend after that more.
Speaker 1: Yes, I imagine there will be even more protests next
Speaker 1: week because MSNBC has just broadcast a rolling list of
Speaker 1: where every single one is being held and directed people
Speaker 1: to the organizer's website. Now do you remember the outrage
Speaker 1: from journalists over people supposedly encouraging January sixth violence. These
Speaker 1: people are so blind to their biases that they do
Speaker 1: not understand the similarities here. Now, Kosher, let's bring you
Speaker 1: in because I'd love to get your views on this.
Speaker 1: I think there's a fine line between covering the story
Speaker 1: and then romanticizing with some of these protesters in a
Speaker 1: way which could give credence to the view that you
Speaker 1: want people to go there. You see this presenter talking
Speaker 1: with this sign that says resistance behind him. It's a
Speaker 1: very positive connotation towards the protests. He clearly thinks these
Speaker 1: protests are a great idea, but in reality, Tesla owners
Speaker 1: are being targeted, Tesla's are being blown up, people are
Speaker 1: being charged with terrorism. It seems like an odd tone
Speaker 1: for a professional news organization to take when discussing the story.
Speaker 5: Definitely, and that is a fine line, but it's a
Speaker 5: very very serious line, because this is a very serious matter.
Speaker 4: You know.
Speaker 5: Chris Hasler said that he finds it remarkable and organic.
Speaker 5: I would agree with him on the first part. It
Speaker 5: is remarkable, but not for the reasons he thinks it
Speaker 5: does not appear organic. I think I have no evidence
Speaker 5: of this, but I think it would be a safe
Speaker 5: assumption that there are these types of agitator groups and
Speaker 5: sources of funding out there. We know this that seem
Speaker 5: to be able to flip a switch basically an unleash
Speaker 5: very much organized protest. It appears grassroots, but you peel
Speaker 5: back the surface and it isn't. That would be my
Speaker 5: educated guess, fat to wager one. And in terms of
Speaker 5: that fine line, you know, they need to be careful
Speaker 5: because the media, for good reason, has very strong protection,
Speaker 5: strongest in the world in America because of the First Amendment,
Speaker 5: and the bar is very high for any sort of
Speaker 5: legal exposure that any media personality would potentially face. However, here,
Speaker 5: if it does get proven that this is domestic terrorism,
Speaker 5: and Trump has said that, and Pambondi is ag has
Speaker 5: also indicated that, as you mentioned, there is a statute.
Speaker 5: It's a little bit more difficult for good reason for
Speaker 5: the president to designate domestic terrorist groups versus foreign terrorist groups,
Speaker 5: or he has a lot more leeway, But there are
Speaker 5: statutes in place. I think it's twenty three thirty one
Speaker 5: in the United States Code number eighteen that actually has
Speaker 5: a definition for terrorism, and they're working their way through
Speaker 5: that in the courts. If that happens, then this becomes
Speaker 5: very serious and it gives more power to the DOJ
Speaker 5: in terms of the types of remedies and prosecutoral action
Speaker 5: they can bring against these folks. And then for Chris
Speaker 5: Hayes and MSNBC and others to be skirting that line,
Speaker 5: if you could prove that they're kind of aiding and
Speaker 5: embedding something that is actually a designated domestic terror group,
Speaker 5: that gets a little bit more dicey for them. So
Speaker 5: they might want to take that into consideration when they.
Speaker 4: Do this reporting.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's a really good point. And whether or not
Speaker 1: they are able to successfully prosecute under the definition of
Speaker 1: terrorism or domestic terrorism, it doesn't change the fact that
Speaker 1: if you had a news organization actively showing people where
Speaker 1: to protest, say a Joe Biden presidency on January sixth,
Speaker 1: They would be outrage if the protest ended up being violent,
Speaker 1: or if they were violent acts that stemmed from that.
Speaker 1: And I think that what this is exposing. I think
Speaker 1: a lot of conservatives already noticed that because there's a
Speaker 1: lot of looting, and then there was already a lot
Speaker 1: of fires that weren't I didn't have the same scope
Speaker 1: on it. But what do you make of the fact
Speaker 1: that there is this hypocrisy. They don't seem to be
Speaker 1: aware of the fact that they're ignoring that distinction.
Speaker 4: It's so true.
Speaker 5: I mean, they really are in this bubble or echo
Speaker 5: chamber where whether it was the j six protests and
Speaker 5: riots or whether it was Black Lives Matter, just the
Speaker 5: way they've framed the issue and covered it versus the
Speaker 5: way they're covering this. It's so obvious to anyone who's
Speaker 5: not in that bubble. And you know, they are in
Speaker 5: a crisis of credibility, as are in many institutions right
Speaker 5: now in America and all across the world. And I
Speaker 5: think the only way to remedy that, really it doesn't
Speaker 5: feel like it can happen from the existing talent that's
Speaker 5: up and down in the organization now. The only way
Speaker 5: would be to inject new talent, new conservative leaning voices
Speaker 5: into mainstream journalism. You're seeing them do a little bit
Speaker 5: in that direction, you know, with the firing of Joy
Speaker 5: Read and Jeff Bezos taking control of editorial a little
Speaker 5: bit more on the Washington Post and so on. But
Speaker 5: the next thing has to be to get other people
Speaker 5: who don't live in that echo chamber on the air,
Speaker 5: in their newspaper columns to present that point of view
Speaker 5: that you just did, Jack, And that's the only way
Speaker 5: to encounter that bias. That is clearly such a blind
Speaker 5: spot for them because they just only live and breathe
Speaker 5: and talk to I think people in very similar thinking,
Speaker 5: and they're missing out on how most of the rest
Speaker 5: of the country sees these issues.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, we'll keep a close eye on it. New
Speaker 1: polls are in and it isn't looking good for the Democrats.
Speaker 1: In fact, it is so bad that my favorite left
Speaker 1: wing talk show host John Stewart took a spray at
Speaker 1: his own side of politics.
Speaker 7: Dems keep fecklessly complaining until the forty eight approval comes
Speaker 7: down to forty which is a plan, but it's forgetting
Speaker 7: one crucial piece of information in Schumer's popularity.
Speaker 8: Calculation, devastating cascading numbers for Democrats. Only twenty seven percent
Speaker 8: of voters have a positive view of the party, the
Speaker 8: lowest favorability rating in their history of NBC's polling.
Speaker 7: You're a twenty seven person. You've got to get Trump
Speaker 7: to lose eight points of popularity just for you to
Speaker 7: get to the point where you're thirteen points below him.
Speaker 7: Your approval is only seven points above where it turns
Speaker 7: red and goes into low power mode.
Speaker 1: Kosher, He's so funny. I really wish he was one
Speaker 1: of us. But I think that what John Stewart's really
Speaker 1: good at here is when he notices that there is
Speaker 1: this massive issue what we were just talking about, with
Speaker 1: this hypocrisy and everything, the Democrats have positioned themselves. They've
Speaker 1: been wedged to being on the side of terrorists and
Speaker 1: people who are looting and burning down. It's a really
Speaker 1: untenable position from the being and it's going to be
Speaker 1: really hard for them to capture mainstream America back if
Speaker 1: their position is well, it is a legitimate form of
Speaker 1: resistance to blow up a test life if that is
Speaker 1: their position they will lose every single time.
Speaker 5: Yes, that one. There are other eighty twenty issues where
Speaker 5: they are just really throwing down on the twenty percent.
Speaker 5: The boys and men playing in sports for girls and
Speaker 5: women is another one. It's an eighty twenty issue, including
Speaker 5: Democrat voters do not want that, but they keep throwing down.
Speaker 5: We've seen examples of this. And the other one is
Speaker 5: deporting violent criminal gang members is another one where eighty
Speaker 5: percent of the country, Republican or a Democrat, agrees with
Speaker 5: that as a principle as a philosophy, and they're not
Speaker 5: so All those examples show that there is a disconnect
Speaker 5: between some of these leading indicators like John Stewart, Van Jones,
Speaker 5: Bill Maher, some of those guys who are a little
Speaker 5: bit ahead of the curve from the left with diagnosing
Speaker 5: the reality that's facing the party right now. But and
Speaker 5: what they're saying versus you know what the voices in
Speaker 5: the room and on the air are throwing down with
Speaker 5: such as these issues that I just mentioned. And until
Speaker 5: that disconnect is closed, that gap is closed, it looks
Speaker 5: like this downwards viral is continuing. I found that poll
Speaker 5: remarkable too, that it's the lowest point twenty seven points
Speaker 5: of approval, as you showed in that chart, is the
Speaker 5: lowest since the nineteen nineties, which is a Clinton years.
Speaker 5: So it's fascinating. It's even the Obama years, which were
Speaker 5: a peak popularity for the Democrats, have sort of come
Speaker 5: and gone and they're way back to where they were
Speaker 5: an entire generation to go. So this is a big deal,
Speaker 5: and they've got to figure out how to regroup, realign
Speaker 5: on a message, and come back to the middle a
Speaker 5: little bit if they want to regain their popularity, and.
Speaker 1: Just quickly, how do they do that if there is
Speaker 1: no willingness to move away from identity politics. If you said,
Speaker 1: and I completely agree with that eighty twenty issue on
Speaker 1: women in men's sports, it seems like a fundamental part
Speaker 1: of the Democratic Party, And how can the party move
Speaker 1: away from an issue that is just so toxic to
Speaker 1: the general public.
Speaker 5: I think, you know, the only way out of this
Speaker 5: for them is through and they really have to have
Speaker 5: a and look in the mirror and just realign on
Speaker 5: some of those eighty twenty issues and let go of
Speaker 5: the twenty percent of the base. It's maybe more rabid
Speaker 5: and louder and squeakier and getting all of their attention.
Speaker 5: The other thing is there isn't any obvious leader in
Speaker 5: the party right now. Usually you need a leader who
Speaker 5: can do that and corral the group and reorient everybody
Speaker 5: around a winning message or two, around the working class, economics,
Speaker 5: sports and all these things. And nobody has stepped into
Speaker 5: that void. There are some familiar faces popping up, obviously,
Speaker 5: but that's another clear gap. So they need a good
Speaker 5: leader and they have to be willing to recalibrate closer
Speaker 5: to the mainstream of American opinion.
Speaker 1: Koshagatta, thank you so much for your insights. A quick
Speaker 1: break then, Jared Henderson joins us to pick apart some
Speaker 1: questionable moves by ABC management.
Speaker 4: Welcome back.
Speaker 1: Joining me now as he does each and every week,
Speaker 1: is Sky News, Australia's media watchdog columnist Jared Henderson. Now,
Speaker 1: thank you very much for you your list of grievances
Speaker 1: this week, as I like to call them, we spotted
Speaker 1: some great ones, including we've got the Global Affairs editor
Speaker 1: John Lyons, and we've spoken about some of his commentary
Speaker 1: in Israel. Well, he's had a little bit of a
Speaker 1: shift of appointment and let's have a listen to how
Speaker 1: it was announced.
Speaker 4: John.
Speaker 1: First of all, I mean we've had you on this
Speaker 1: show many times, but congratulations on your new appointment.
Speaker 4: Well, thank you, James.
Speaker 9: It's great to be trying to translate the Trump presidency
Speaker 9: to an Australian audience.
Speaker 1: There is a there's a very negative sting on there,
Speaker 1: and the point that I would make as well, if
Speaker 1: you look at the polling. We've already discussed it earlier
Speaker 1: in the show, but the polling has been rather positive
Speaker 1: for Trump, so it doesn't really matter what Australians think
Speaker 1: of Trump, but back there they're positive about some of
Speaker 1: the things he's doing. Whereas John Lyons has to go
Speaker 1: in there and essentially make the case that he has
Speaker 1: to explain the chaos of a Trump.
Speaker 10: President's going to translate Trump for Australia. You and I
Speaker 10: we can get a translation of Trump if we listened
Speaker 10: to John, who's now over there for a couple of years.
Speaker 10: Apparently pretty nice position because they've already got three people there,
Speaker 10: so why they needed John Lyons, I don't know. And
Speaker 10: in any event, if you want to know what's going
Speaker 10: on in the United States, to get a much better
Speaker 10: coverage on Sky News and Fox News, and the lead
Speaker 10: up to the last election, for example, than you ever
Speaker 10: did on the ABC. But now John's there to translated
Speaker 10: for us. That's okay. So he's an anti he's an
Speaker 10: Israel antagonist, and he's now gone to the United States
Speaker 10: where he's a Trump antagonist, but he's going to translate
Speaker 10: it for us.
Speaker 4: Do you think he's been shifted because of criticism.
Speaker 10: I have no knowledge of that, but it wouldn't surprise me.
Speaker 10: I mean, it's an easy way to move him, and
Speaker 10: I think originally he was probably moved because he wanted
Speaker 10: the job of director of News and he didn't get
Speaker 10: it and went to Justin Stevens, and so they gave
Speaker 10: him the Global Affairs editorship. Now he's been in controversy
Speaker 10: on that, and now they've given him the America's editor
Speaker 10: So maybe they want to move him around because he's needed,
Speaker 10: or maybe it's a convenient place to put him. Bear
Speaker 10: in mind, it's only a year or so ago that
Speaker 10: he that he virtually supported a vote of no confidence
Speaker 10: in their ABC management manager, David Anderson, which is I
Speaker 10: mean in.
Speaker 4: That place is a circus, isn't it? Well?
Speaker 10: In any commercial organization, if you've voted if you've voted
Speaker 10: a vote of no confidence in the Chief executive, you'll
Speaker 10: be out the door in the afternoon. But in the
Speaker 10: ABC they give you two plumb appointments to keep you quiet.
Speaker 10: I think that's my interpretation. Of course I could be wrong.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, moving on now, because you've spotted some a
Speaker 1: very soft interview in seven thirty. It's the ABC's flagship show,
Speaker 1: Current Affairs Show, and they gave Jim Chalmers what I
Speaker 1: think we could all argue is a little bit of
Speaker 1: a soft go.
Speaker 2: Now.
Speaker 11: You've described the one point two billion hit from Cyclone
Speaker 11: Alfred as a quote big new pressure on the budget.
Speaker 11: As important as this is with government spending forecast at
Speaker 11: about seven hundred and thirty billion this financial year, is
Speaker 11: emphasizing this a form of misdirection ahead of the budget.
Speaker 4: Of course it isn't.
Speaker 1: And then straight after that Ferguson spent a very long
Speaker 1: time with Laura Tingle criticizing Peter Dutton.
Speaker 9: It's sounding really much like policy on the run and
Speaker 9: that's making his colleagues very nervous. We're only maybe a
Speaker 9: week from the election being called and Peter Dutton still
Speaker 9: saying don't worry, it will announce our policies in the
Speaker 9: election campaign.
Speaker 11: Laura Tingle, thank you very much indeed for coming in
Speaker 11: to explain that today's events. Thank you, Thanks.
Speaker 1: Sarah, rather extraordinary commentary. Laura Tingle's got form here, but
Speaker 1: there's a vitriol that comes through when she talks about
Speaker 1: Peter Well.
Speaker 10: Sarah Ferguson's wrong. She did not explain today's events. She
Speaker 10: had a go at Peter Dutton and she didn't mention
Speaker 10: the treasurer. And now, of course the big issue, I mean,
Speaker 10: wherever you stand politically, the big issue at the moment
Speaker 10: is the deficit and debt in economic terms. But that
Speaker 10: Laura Tingle didn't touch that and said she's the whole session.
Speaker 10: She does part into Peter Dutton and we know where
Speaker 10: she sounds on Peter Dutton. It's sort of she doesn't
Speaker 10: like him, you know, and that's pretty evident. But if
Speaker 10: you've got a political correspondent reporting on today the days
Speaker 10: of ensn Canbra, you should report on the days of
Speaker 10: ENS and Canberra. And there were more stories around than
Speaker 10: Peter Dutton on that day, for sure.
Speaker 1: There's no neutrality in her language. Everything just has to
Speaker 1: be this negative stem and it's so obvious to anybody watching.
Speaker 10: Well, she can't hide it, and she probably doesn't try
Speaker 10: to hide it. But so she's not much good into hypocrisies.
Speaker 1: I mean she I could just imagine all the producers
Speaker 1: cheering when she gets off set.
Speaker 10: Oh yeah, that's happened at the ABC. It happened when
Speaker 10: I was supporting the Republic and I'd come out the
Speaker 10: door and that all be cheering. But when I supported
Speaker 10: John Howard on IRAQ B, I wouldn't talk to me.
Speaker 1: Well, finally we're going to have another look some anti
Speaker 1: Israel bias that we've picked up.
Speaker 4: This time it's Sally Sarah.
Speaker 12: The Israeli government says that your office is anti Semitic
Speaker 12: and the allegations in these incidents are false. Did the
Speaker 12: Israeli government take part in the investigations behind this report?
Speaker 1: The Israeli government, from the very beginning of our commission
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty one, has refused to cooperate with us
Speaker 1: in any way.
Speaker 9: It obstructs our work at every opportunity.
Speaker 8: They lie constantly.
Speaker 1: Now, Jared some very bold claims, but also equally, when
Speaker 1: this same reporter gets people from the Israeli side very hostile,
Speaker 1: The questioning it doesn't really give that same kind of latitude.
Speaker 4: What do you make of it? All?
Speaker 10: Well, Chrystidity is in Australian, he's an Israeli Israel antagonist
Speaker 10: and then they got on a former Israel Defense Forces
Speaker 10: commentator and it was just put to him that he
Speaker 10: was into genocide. So in a sense he was being verbal.
Speaker 10: But Chrystidity got a very solf run and the report,
Speaker 10: the head of that report one who puts that, who
Speaker 10: put who signs off on that. She's also a well
Speaker 10: known Israeli antagonist. But what it was, what was being
Speaker 10: put around is that you had to believe this report
Speaker 10: from the United Nations, and we all know that the
Speaker 10: United Nations, large sections of it are very hostile to Israel.
Speaker 10: So it's not at all balanced. I mean, there's there's
Speaker 10: an interview on Friday which is soft on the critics
Speaker 10: of Israel, and an interview on the following Monday which
Speaker 10: is incredibly hard on the supporters of Israel. And that
Speaker 10: goes on all the time, and it happened again this
Speaker 10: morning and I'll cover that next week, I expect, if
Speaker 10: not here in Momentia Watchdog Blog look.
Speaker 1: Forward to reading it. Jerry Henderson, thank you so much
Speaker 1: for joining us as always. Now that's all the time
Speaker 1: that we have for this evening, but up next is Newsnight.