Speaker 1: This is the Media Show.
Speaker 2: With Jack Outing.
Speaker 3: Hello, and welcome to the Media Show. Tonight, we'll break
Speaker 3: down the media's reaction to the Trump Musk feud and
Speaker 3: chat about activist journalists with media watchdog columnist Jared Henderson.
Speaker 3: But first, you have to feel sorry for the ABC.
Speaker 3: Sometimes they've stoked such a captive audience that the rusted
Speaker 3: on lefties watching will not even tolerate if our host
Speaker 3: has good manners.
Speaker 4: Other businesses, trusts, and other investment classes.
Speaker 5: All right, well, we'll have to have to continue this conversation.
Speaker 5: It's a complex topic, but I'm glad to have you back.
Speaker 5: Thank you very much, indeed, Tim for speaking to us tonight.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Sarah.
Speaker 3: You have to be a special kind of person to
Speaker 3: take issue with that. But unfortunately for poor hosts Sarah Ferguson,
Speaker 3: that's a serious chunk of her viewership. And these people
Speaker 3: often washed up journalists themselves and anonymous viewers. They linger
Speaker 3: on the cesspool that is Twitter to attack any ABC
Speaker 3: journalist deemed to be polite to a conservative politician. Former
Speaker 3: Press Gallery journalist Jeff Kitney was shocked at her manners.
Speaker 6: He said, what an.
Speaker 3: Extraordinary thing for a senior ABC political journalist to say,
Speaker 3: and this Twitter troll Keith Sutherland said he was absolutely
Speaker 3: appalled by the five words glad to have you back.
Speaker 3: The bye shown by our once great ABC is absolutely
Speaker 3: disgusting and it's time for Albow to make some changes
Speaker 3: at the top and board. And poor Rold Margaret well,
Speaker 3: she's simply given up. I just can't watch it anymore. Well,
Speaker 3: joining me now is this week's panel Radio two Double
Speaker 3: Sea host Stephen Senna Tiempo and of course James Willis
Speaker 3: of the Daily Telegraph.
Speaker 6: Now, James, let's start with you. What am I missing here?
Speaker 3: Sarah Ferguson is all of a sudden, some biased right
Speaker 3: wing flack.
Speaker 6: What's happening?
Speaker 1: It's funny because when you played that grab, I had
Speaker 1: to stop and wonder what the actual issue was, and
Speaker 1: you'd have to listen pretty closely to even uncover where
Speaker 1: any sort of perception of bias is.
Speaker 6: I mean, this is ridiculous.
Speaker 1: It's the same thing that used to happen with Lee
Speaker 1: Sales and I think seven point thirty in Fairness is
Speaker 1: probably the best program on the ABC and Lee Sales
Speaker 1: used to copy this, just as Sarah's.
Speaker 6: Coppying it for you.
Speaker 1: Know, being really really harsh with her questioning on the
Speaker 1: government of the day, which is the Albanesi government, and
Speaker 1: in this case, a little bit of politeness to someone
Speaker 1: that's just had to fight tooth and nail after losing
Speaker 1: your seat, and then a fierce sort of count over
Speaker 1: many days to say well done, great to have you back.
Speaker 6: I mean, it's just ridiculous.
Speaker 1: Where is the outrage over the bias at the ABC shows?
Speaker 1: On a daily basis, We've had high profile ABC presenters
Speaker 1: post for selfies with ministers in the Alberaneesy government. People
Speaker 1: seem to be okay with that, some of the left
Speaker 1: leaning approaches they've taken. I mean, for something like this
Speaker 1: to blow up just indicate it's how ridiculous some of
Speaker 1: these people are being. I think it's crazy. And for anyone,
Speaker 1: even littlone, a former Press Calorie person, to be upset
Speaker 1: by this is beyond the pal You can't even believe it.
Speaker 3: Yeah, Stephen, there seems to be this enormous amount of
Speaker 3: pressure that some of these ABC presenters face to not
Speaker 3: be moderate, to actively be antagonistic towards conservatives. And then
Speaker 3: when I'm looking at this and watching this and seeing
Speaker 3: that they're probably seeing the shares and the comments and
Speaker 3: the likes. It might actually have some kind of an impact.
Speaker 7: It probably does, But they've made a rod for their
Speaker 7: own Backjack. You know, the reality is that the inmates
Speaker 7: have been running the asylum at the ABC for so
Speaker 7: many years they've created this left wing utopia that that's
Speaker 7: what their viewers expect. But to poor Margaret, I know
Speaker 7: exactly how she feels. I can't watch it anymore either,
Speaker 7: and she's welcome to come over and watch us here
Speaker 7: on Sky.
Speaker 6: But I think you're being.
Speaker 7: Very generous to Tim Wilson, calling him a conservative politician
Speaker 7: by the way.
Speaker 6: Yeah, well that's a good point.
Speaker 3: Maybe a debate for a for another time, because moving on,
Speaker 3: those two royals who demand both privacy and public adoration
Speaker 3: in the form of social media likes have made a
Speaker 3: headlines again.
Speaker 8: Down Jack Down, Down, Down, went up.
Speaker 9: Down Wama Tumapa.
Speaker 3: So what exactly do they want? Do they want to
Speaker 3: be TikTok stars or do they want privacy? Now, Harry
Speaker 3: just tried to sue his way into getting taxpayer funded
Speaker 3: police protection whenever he is in the UK. One of
Speaker 3: his arguments was media intrusion et cetera, and the safety
Speaker 3: of his family because of the fame his birth afforded him.
Speaker 3: Now that doesn't work if you were actively trying to
Speaker 3: boost your profile with weird dancers, and it is probably
Speaker 3: why the courts decided this.
Speaker 10: Prince Harry, the Duke of Sussex has lost the later
Speaker 10: stage of his court battle over the level of security
Speaker 10: protection he receives in the UK. His taxpayer funded protection
Speaker 10: was downgraded five years ago. The Duke says that as
Speaker 10: a result, it's too dangerous for him to bring his
Speaker 10: family to the UK, citing what he says is unjustified
Speaker 10: and inferior treatment.
Speaker 3: How much contempt for the average taxpayer must you have
Speaker 3: to demand that they pay for your luxury lifestyle in
Speaker 3: the middle of a cost of living crisis. Let's bring
Speaker 3: the panel back in to discuss, now, James. One thing
Speaker 3: that strikes me with this is, and look, we were
Speaker 3: just talking about it with that other story about the
Speaker 3: cesspool that can be social media, and I do think
Speaker 3: ABC journalists make a mistake pandering to that crowd and
Speaker 3: then they complain that they're getting bullied or harassed by
Speaker 3: that exact same crowd. Get off there and don't tweet
Speaker 3: would be my solution to that. But the same thing
Speaker 3: with Harry and Meghan. Here, you've got these people, people
Speaker 3: who this cognitive dissonance that they must be living through,
Speaker 3: where basically they want to be left alone, but then
Speaker 3: they also are out there provoking and wanting and craving
Speaker 3: likes and attention on these same platforms.
Speaker 1: What are your thoughts, Well, they're delusional and the hypocrisy
Speaker 1: here is just unbelievable. And I think also based on
Speaker 1: that legal case, to officially cut ties with the royal
Speaker 1: family and then be expecting the taxpayer to pick up
Speaker 1: your bill for security and continue part of the free rider.
Speaker 1: I mean, you can't have a bit each way. If
Speaker 1: you're not involved in the royal family anymore, that's fine.
Speaker 1: Don't expect the taxpayer to pick up the bill if
Speaker 1: you feel unsafe. But it's one thing to constantly say
Speaker 1: we want privacy, we're a private couple and a private family,
Speaker 1: but then everything that they do indicates that that isn't
Speaker 1: the case. They've had Netflix deals, they've written books. The
Speaker 1: video and isolation, I think if it was a one off,
Speaker 1: you'd was quite acute interactional, though the music was pretty corny,
Speaker 1: but it's just another example of these people claiming to
Speaker 1: be one privacy and to continue on their own way,
Speaker 1: and then I mean.
Speaker 6: It's just not the case.
Speaker 1: It's a really, really sad chapter in the royal family.
Speaker 1: But the goal that they have to sort of be
Speaker 1: asking for treatment and also doing the opposite is next level.
Speaker 1: I don't think we've seen anything like this in the
Speaker 1: history of the UK Royal family. Jack, Yeah, I do
Speaker 1: love it. It's good content. Stephen, what do we think
Speaker 1: of the dance though? The real big question?
Speaker 7: Well, I was just going to say, so we finally
Speaker 7: found something that the Duke and Duchess of Montecito are
Speaker 7: worse at than being royals, and that is dancing. I mean, Faedickham,
Speaker 7: you know, look, this is I think James hit the
Speaker 7: nail on the head here. They don't want to be royals,
Speaker 7: but they want to be royals. They go out there,
Speaker 7: they leak to the paparazzi, so there's always somebody around
Speaker 7: the corner taking photos of them, and then when the photos.
Speaker 6: Appear there so we just want to be left alone.
Speaker 7: Please don't take photos obviously, or stay out of the spotlight.
Speaker 6: It's easy.
Speaker 7: They've got their millions that but not as many millions
Speaker 7: as they like, because obviously there was the drama about
Speaker 7: not getting enough money from the king, of course, But
Speaker 7: just go and live your lifestyle. You plant your among
Speaker 7: beans in the backyard, go to the beach every now
Speaker 7: and then, play with your kids, enjoy your life. I mean,
Speaker 7: they've got plenty of dough. And look, I'll give Harry
Speaker 7: credit for the work he does within Victor's games, but
Speaker 7: outside of that, just stay out.
Speaker 6: Of the spotlight.
Speaker 7: Or if she really desperately craves the attention, because clearly
Speaker 7: they've got relevant deprivation disorder, go and make another series
Speaker 7: of suits, or make a movie, or do whatever.
Speaker 6: Just leave us alone.
Speaker 3: Stephen, that the court decision aside, should they be getting security,
Speaker 3: there is there a legitimate argument or a case to
Speaker 3: be made that it is out of his control and
Speaker 3: the public should pay for it. Look, there's a certain
Speaker 3: to a certain extent, given his profile, there probably is
Speaker 3: a higher risk than there is for you or me.
Speaker 7: But they made the decision. They didn't want to be
Speaker 7: a part of the royal family. They don't want to
Speaker 7: do the work that the royals do, and to their credit,
Speaker 7: working royals actually do work pretty hard. They've decided that
Speaker 7: they don't want to do it, so you don't get
Speaker 7: the trappings that go with it.
Speaker 6: It's as simple as that.
Speaker 3: Yeah, And not only do they not want to do it,
Speaker 3: they want to commercialize their time. And you know, James,
Speaker 3: a lot of stuff that the Royals would do would
Speaker 3: be charity driven, it would be advocating causes, but they're
Speaker 3: spending their time monetizing podcasts, well, trying to monetize podcasts.
Speaker 3: I note that it can fall out of the top
Speaker 3: one hundred, But do you agree with Stephen there on
Speaker 3: the case for protection.
Speaker 1: Absolutely, and I think it applies to most people that
Speaker 1: would get taxpayer funded security. If you're doing public work,
Speaker 1: and if you're serving in the public interest, then there
Speaker 1: would be an argument to have a car, to have
Speaker 1: a security guard. But you know, as Steven has articulated,
Speaker 1: these guys wanted all of it. They wanted to not
Speaker 1: be part of the royal family, not do the hard yards.
Speaker 1: And let's face it, I mean for the likes of
Speaker 1: William and also King Charles and obviously the later Majesty
Speaker 1: Queen Elizabeth, a large part of the job, the overwhelming
Speaker 1: largest part of the job was public service and working
Speaker 1: around the clock and traveling the Commonwealth and going to
Speaker 1: all sorts of different countries and being involved in charities,
Speaker 1: and you know, they did it, and they did it
Speaker 1: without a fuss. But to expect that same sort of
Speaker 1: treatment without having to do the hard yards is just
Speaker 1: next level. If anyone should be paying for their security,
Speaker 1: it should be their TV deals or their book deals
Speaker 1: or their podcast deals. Those big companies that are involved
Speaker 1: in those could be picking up the check, but not
Speaker 1: the taxpayer.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's a good point, and I think when I
Speaker 3: look at this, they want to be spoken about. They
Speaker 3: just want to be spoken about in a very specific way.
Speaker 3: It's kind of this authoritarian control. So it isn't true
Speaker 3: that they want privacy. They just want a very specific
Speaker 3: type of media coverage that they're probably not going to
Speaker 3: get on this show. But let's move on because TikTok
Speaker 3: has taken out a series of ads in the nine
Speaker 3: newspapers hitting back at the Albanese government's social media childband.
Speaker 6: Now.
Speaker 3: The Australian's James Madden reports video sharing app TikTok fired
Speaker 3: its first post election shot at the federal government last week,
Speaker 3: paying tens of thousands of dollars for a four and
Speaker 3: a half pages of advertising in the NINO in Australian
Speaker 3: Financial Review extolling this supposed educational and social benefits of
Speaker 3: children who use the social media platform.
Speaker 6: Well, Steven, let's bring you back in. What do you
Speaker 6: make of this?
Speaker 3: They're obviously you know, it's the ByteDance owned company. It's
Speaker 3: got links to the CCP. They are paying media companies
Speaker 3: the AFR. Nothing against the AFAR for for accepting that. Think,
Speaker 3: I think that's a fair enough campaign. But they're running
Speaker 3: these ads making the argument, putting forward the proposition that
Speaker 3: there is a benefit for very young kids to use TikTok.
Speaker 6: Are you buying that? And what do you make of it?
Speaker 7: No, Look, I'm going to take two sides of this
Speaker 7: argument because I do think the social media band is
Speaker 7: wrong because there were better ways to do it. Because
Speaker 7: we've got a bunch of politicians that don't actually understand
Speaker 7: what the problem is. They ignored advice from experts on
Speaker 7: this and thought, let's just simply put a ban on
Speaker 7: kids under sixteen or under eight and or whatever it
Speaker 7: is being on social media. But fit he can leave
Speaker 7: me out of TikTok being educational. I mean, what the
Speaker 7: kids really know how to butcher pasta recipes and run
Speaker 7: at one hundred miles an hour at each other in
Speaker 7: some rugby challenge or you know, lean off the side
Speaker 7: of buildings or whatever.
Speaker 6: I mean.
Speaker 7: I believe TikTok should be banned. But there's people in
Speaker 7: this building now, if they're official phones, they're banned from
Speaker 7: having TikTok on it because of its links to the CCP.
Speaker 7: And then our politicians go out and get a second
Speaker 7: phone just to put TikTok on it. So you know,
Speaker 7: we are being led by idiots too. So yeah, there's
Speaker 7: half a chance that these ads might actually work on
Speaker 7: our politicians.
Speaker 3: I have no doubt that ads work. James, let's bring
Speaker 3: you in here. I actually agree with Steven. I think
Speaker 3: that the social media ban is a bad idea done
Speaker 3: by people that actually don't understand the digital environment. But personally,
Speaker 3: I do get the arguments against it, but I'm more
Speaker 3: concerned by TikTok's ties and whether the individual case of
Speaker 3: these individual platforms is appropriate for kids.
Speaker 6: Anyway. Do you disagree with us? What do you make
Speaker 6: of it all? Yeah?
Speaker 1: I don't agree with you guys, for the simple reason
Speaker 1: that I think social media has become such a big
Speaker 1: part of our lives now and such an influential medium
Speaker 1: amongst young people.
Speaker 6: And that's for a range of reasons.
Speaker 1: From screen time and we know, look that the education
Speaker 1: standards are in the toilet. You've got teachers saying that
Speaker 1: there's phones in classrooms. Parents are having a nightmare with
Speaker 1: this from a very early age. So I think there's
Speaker 1: a screen time element. There's also an algorithm element. And
Speaker 1: I think the social media platforms, not just TikTok, but
Speaker 1: also Instagram and the others that have reeling and scrolling
Speaker 1: sort of technology, like they've been given an opportunity to
Speaker 1: clean up their platforms and keep the content as you know,
Speaker 1: appropriate as possible, and it just hasn't happened. There's sex
Speaker 1: on there, there's violence on there. You know, there's every
Speaker 1: possible you know, concerning element on these platforms that is
Speaker 1: just seeping through into people's algorithms. So for that in mind,
Speaker 1: I think it's so big that it would be silly
Speaker 1: for a government to not at least have a crack
Speaker 1: at regulating it for people under the age of sixteen.
Speaker 1: In saying that, I think it's going to be a
Speaker 1: very very hard thing to police and actually put in
Speaker 1: place and keep up. But I agree with you guys
Speaker 1: certainly on the links to the Communist Party in China.
Speaker 1: I mean, if government's officials are being told to not
Speaker 1: use TikTok, it's been ban in.
Speaker 6: America, what advice do they have that we don't have,
Speaker 6: I'd love to know.
Speaker 3: Yeah, Steve, and I see you want to jump in there, Jack,
Speaker 3: Can I just yeah, jump just on that. And I
Speaker 3: agree with what James is saying with the problems around
Speaker 3: social media. But there were experts, We've got some of
Speaker 3: the best in the world at protecting kids online in
Speaker 3: this country who said to our government, we will tell
Speaker 3: you how to do this a better way for free,
Speaker 3: so that parents can actually have absolute control on what
Speaker 3: their kids can and can't see online. And the government
Speaker 3: ignored them because they didn't understand the problem. It was
Speaker 3: just easier to go for the grab and say, look,
Speaker 3: we're going to ban kids under eighteen for being on TikTok,
Speaker 3: despite the fact that we know we can't enforce it.
Speaker 3: We don't know how it's actually going to work. But
Speaker 3: you experts that know how to do it, we don't
Speaker 3: want to listen to you, because that might actually take
Speaker 3: a bit of brain power. Yeah, look at it's really
Speaker 3: interesting argument, guys. But James' final word on it, and
Speaker 3: then and then we'll head to the next.
Speaker 1: Well, I'm open to all ideas, and I always think
Speaker 1: there is an underbelly of banning something completely. But I
Speaker 1: just think like for the government, for the Albanezy government
Speaker 1: and also for Peter Dutton to put this on the
Speaker 1: agenda and start working through it, I think is a
Speaker 1: step in the right direction. But I do agree that
Speaker 1: the devil will be in the detail.
Speaker 3: James Willis, steven Senta Tiampo, thank you so much for
Speaker 3: joining and hashing that one out a quick break. But
Speaker 3: when we return, Trump takes on muss. Well, welcome back
Speaker 3: to Stars and Gripes, the show where we expose the
Speaker 3: hypocrisy of the journalist elite in America. And what a
Speaker 3: show we have for tonight. It is really the dream
Speaker 3: situation for those activist journalists. President Donald Trump and Elon
Speaker 3: Musk throwing barbes in what seems to be an increasingly
Speaker 3: escalating petty feud. And I'm very happy because it gives
Speaker 3: us plenty of content because when the leftist media feels
Speaker 3: like they have a win. That's actually when they overreach
Speaker 3: in the most extraordinary of ways. And what you are
Speaker 3: watching on repeat on every channel in the world is
Speaker 3: live coverage of these journalists salivating at the petty drama
Speaker 3: now Gaza, Ukraine, the threat of nuclear escalation of the Russia,
Speaker 3: Chinese submarines circling Taiwan like hungry hawks. None of that
Speaker 3: matters because the boys we don't like are fighting, and that,
Speaker 3: at least for those at CNN, is the single most
Speaker 3: important story in the world.
Speaker 6: Right now.
Speaker 8: We've been watching President Trump in the Oval Office with
Speaker 8: the German Chancellor and a lot to get to here,
Speaker 8: but the most interesting and perhaps important issue, political issue
Speaker 8: and policy issue is what President Trump said about his
Speaker 8: now former friend. At least it seems Elon Musk and
Speaker 8: I want to go to Elena Treen at the White House. Elena,
Speaker 8: it seems as though we saw kind of the unraveling
Speaker 8: of a romance real time.
Speaker 6: Look at that smile.
Speaker 3: She can't even hide her elation. She is practically euphoric
Speaker 3: right now.
Speaker 6: And I get it.
Speaker 3: It is very funny, but really, who did not see
Speaker 3: that coming? Now joining me is the president of the
Speaker 3: Center of the American Experiment, John Heindereker, John, what.
Speaker 6: A moment in history.
Speaker 3: You have walked into a very ferocious feud between two
Speaker 3: people that I mean, really it was never going to last,
Speaker 3: was it.
Speaker 9: Well, this is a sad situation. Honestly, it's an harassment
Speaker 9: for the Trump administration and for the whole conservative movement.
Speaker 9: And I fault Elon Musk. I think his attack on
Speaker 9: the Big Beautiful Bill was over the top and politically naive,
Speaker 9: and the things that he has been saying since, like
Speaker 9: about Epstein and so on, completely nuts, just crazy. But
Speaker 9: you're absolutely right. The liberal media loves to have a
Speaker 9: distraction so they don't have to talk about all the
Speaker 9: good things and the popular things that the Trump administration
Speaker 9: is actually doing.
Speaker 6: Yeah, it's such a good point.
Speaker 3: And I mean when I'm looking at the way that
Speaker 3: the hosts are covering it and their faces lighting up,
Speaker 3: it's almost like some journalists want things to go bad
Speaker 3: for Americans, because then they were right all along.
Speaker 9: Well, there's no doubt about that. They root for America
Speaker 9: to fail, they root for our economy to go downhill.
Speaker 9: They scam the numbers that come out every month on
Speaker 9: GDP and so forth, hoping that things are going to
Speaker 9: be going down. They celebrate if there's a dip of
Speaker 9: the stock market. They loved when Tesla stock briefly went
Speaker 9: down significantly, which, by the way, maybe about to happen again.
Speaker 9: But you're right. They root for failure, particularly when we
Speaker 9: have a Republican president.
Speaker 6: Yeah. Really interesting stuff.
Speaker 3: Well, moving on because as expected, the media has done
Speaker 3: a little bit of sleight of hand with his story.
Speaker 3: And just last week we were told Musk was a
Speaker 3: drug adult, mentally ill assault victim with a black eye,
Speaker 3: who had so little credibility it was basically a crime
Speaker 3: to have him work in the White House.
Speaker 11: It's kind of a rough last day in government for
Speaker 11: Elon Musk, who showed up to the Oval Office for
Speaker 11: some kind of send off with a black eye, just
Speaker 11: hours after New Bombshell reporting on allegations of his voracious
Speaker 11: drug use in a lengthy article citing people familiar with
Speaker 11: his activities in New York Times reports that Musk's drug
Speaker 11: consumption went well beyond occasional use. He told people he
Speaker 11: was taking so much Kenmi, a powerful anesthetic, that it
Speaker 11: was affecting his bladder, a known effect of chronic use.
Speaker 11: I learned that Today from New York Times didn't know
Speaker 11: that he took ecstasy and psychedelic mushrooms, and he traveled
Speaker 11: with a daily medication box that he held about twenty pills,
Speaker 11: including ones with the markings of the stimulant adderall according
Speaker 11: to a photo of the box.
Speaker 6: And people who have seen it.
Speaker 11: The Times adds that while his drug use on the
Speaker 11: campaign trail was more than occasional, it is unclear whether
Speaker 11: he was taking drugs when he became a fixture at
Speaker 11: the White House this year.
Speaker 3: The coverage was ferocious and no one was taking musks
Speaker 3: seriously at this point.
Speaker 6: This dude is a one man anti drug campaign.
Speaker 12: These are your pants, These are your pants on drugs,
Speaker 12: And I do love the fact though that the detail.
Speaker 6: Is he's the one who told him he had platifol.
Speaker 6: That means things were so bad he had to be like, Oh,
Speaker 6: don't worry, it's something weird. It's just an overabundance of
Speaker 6: a ketemy. But then this happened.
Speaker 13: Time to drop the really big bomb. Donald Trump is
Speaker 13: in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they
Speaker 13: have not been made public. Have a nice day, DJT
Speaker 13: This claim, which then cannot confirm of course, what imply
Speaker 13: the Trump was in some way name dropped in the
Speaker 13: case surrounding Jeffrey Epstein, the notorious and convicted pedophiles who
Speaker 13: died by suicide in prison in twenty nineteen while awaiting
Speaker 13: his federal sex trafficking trial. The accusation from Musk is
Speaker 13: about as nasty as it gets, accusing somebody of being
Speaker 13: a pedophile and then covering it up.
Speaker 3: So wait, all of a sudden, Musk is a good
Speaker 3: enough primary and loan source to air the allegation about
Speaker 3: pedophilia and covering it up. They have no standards and
Speaker 3: there is no logic at all behind what they choose
Speaker 3: to air and what they choose to bury, other than
Speaker 3: does it help their political goals. Well, John, you kind
Speaker 3: of hinted at this during our last topic. There are
Speaker 3: these absurd allegations that Donald Trump is is somehow assisting
Speaker 3: Jeffrey Epstein and he's covering it up.
Speaker 6: There's no basis for that.
Speaker 3: And so we've gone from one point where the media
Speaker 3: we had no credibility for this bloy for a very
Speaker 3: good reason, to now they're saying, well, we can't confirm it,
Speaker 3: but here's the allegation, and they broadcast this baseless allegation
Speaker 3: to households all around the world. To me, it seems
Speaker 3: it seems inappropriate to say the least.
Speaker 9: Well, you're right. What we're seeing here is a one
Speaker 9: hundred and eighty degree switch on the part of the
Speaker 9: liberal media. Now every single liberal commentator and journalist is
Speaker 9: going to be on team Elon, eating up and publicizing
Speaker 9: anything bad he says about Donald Trump. And the reason
Speaker 9: for that is that they don't really care about Elon Musk,
Speaker 9: but they care about as President Trump.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's a really good point. Now, it's my favorite activist, journalist,
Speaker 3: Joy Raid. She was sacked by MSNBCA, and she's got
Speaker 3: a new theory.
Speaker 14: About why lots of people at the network who are
Speaker 14: critical of Donald Trump. I mean, and they're still critical
Speaker 14: of him. I'm assuming, you know, so I don't think
Speaker 14: that that that's but but I do know there was
Speaker 14: There is a lot of anxiety both there and I
Speaker 14: think in every media. We're seeing it at CBS, we're
Speaker 14: seeing it at ABC, where allegedly the view hosts were
Speaker 14: told not to go so hard on Trump, where there's
Speaker 14: a push for people to hey, do less Trump, do
Speaker 14: more entertainment, don't be hard on him. Yeah, that pages
Speaker 14: there's a fear of him, So I think there's you know,
Speaker 14: and obviously I'm.
Speaker 4: But not you were.
Speaker 14: I mean, let's be honest, you were no different than
Speaker 14: Nicole or Rachel Maddow, where only in one way was
Speaker 14: I different. I'm a black woman doing the thing, you
Speaker 14: know what I mean, and so I'm not different, but
Speaker 14: I'm different.
Speaker 6: John.
Speaker 3: Do we really think that MSNBC is racially targeting their hosts?
Speaker 6: Is that plausible?
Speaker 9: Well, here's what's going on. MSNBC is in a state
Speaker 9: of crisis. They're like CNN. They have gone so far
Speaker 9: left that no one wants to watch them, and Joy
Speaker 9: Reid is a part of that problem. Her viewership is
Speaker 9: down almost fifty percent since the election. So it's not
Speaker 9: hard to understand why they're having a big shakeup at MSNBC.
Speaker 9: But the other thing about Joe Reid is what we
Speaker 9: saw in that video is her playing the race card. Right.
Speaker 9: The reality is that's the only card that Joy Reid
Speaker 9: has to play. If you ever saw her show, it
Speaker 9: was obsessed with race. That was pretty much the only
Speaker 9: thing Joy Reid wanted to talk about. And I think
Speaker 9: MSNBC may very well have made a good business decision
Speaker 9: that that is not the way to try to regain
Speaker 9: an audience.
Speaker 3: Well, said Biden's old press sec Karine Jean Pierre, has
Speaker 3: a new book in which she criticizes her own old administration.
Speaker 15: President Biden's former press secretary, Catherine Jean Pierre announces she's
Speaker 15: writing a new book called Independent. I Look inside a
Speaker 15: Broken White House outside party lines, and she shared why
Speaker 15: she says she's leaving the Democratic Party.
Speaker 7: Take a look.
Speaker 16: I think we need to stop thinking in boxes and
Speaker 16: think outside of our.
Speaker 4: Boxes and not be so partisan.
Speaker 16: If you are willing to stand side by side with me,
Speaker 16: regardless of your political how you identify politically, and as
Speaker 16: long as you respect the community that I belong to
Speaker 16: and vulnerable communities that I respect, I will be there
Speaker 16: with you.
Speaker 5: I will I will move.
Speaker 16: Forward with you.
Speaker 3: John Karine Jean Pierre. What a name, by the way,
Speaker 3: absolutely cracker of a name. Now this is the person
Speaker 3: that ran the COMMNS. So she stood up there, disseminated
Speaker 3: all the propaganda Biden's healthy. You're being a horrible person
Speaker 3: if you point out that he stumbled. She also said
Speaker 3: that Donald Trump was a threat to democracy. You know
Speaker 3: that This is a propagator. This is a person who
Speaker 3: has permeated all these lies. She's the one that pushed
Speaker 3: all the cheap fake I don't know if you remember that,
Speaker 3: but this cheap fake phenomenon that we can't believe our
Speaker 3: own lying eyes. And now well she's an independent, she's credible.
Speaker 6: What do you make of this?
Speaker 9: Kari Jean Pierre was the bag dad Bob of the
Speaker 9: Biden administration. She stood up there a coupodium and probably
Speaker 9: told more lies than any press secretary in history, including
Speaker 9: the biggest one. She spent more time with Joe Biden
Speaker 9: than almost anyone. She was with him virtually every day,
Speaker 9: and she knew better than almost anyone that he was incompetent,
Speaker 9: that he was not in fact discharging the of his office.
Speaker 9: And she got up there repeatedly and gaslighted the American people.
Speaker 9: It was an absolutely shameless performance. And the idea that
Speaker 9: she is now there's non partisan independent, she's at the
Speaker 9: Democratic Party, seems pretty obvious that she is trying to
Speaker 9: reinvent herself so as to sell books.
Speaker 6: It's so funny to me.
Speaker 3: It's the one person who probably can't reinvent themselves when
Speaker 3: they're the ones who's the face of the administration. But
Speaker 3: John Heindireca, thank you so much for joining me. I
Speaker 3: really appreciate your analysis. We're going to take a short break,
Speaker 3: but when we return we sit down with Jared Henderson.
Speaker 6: Welcome back.
Speaker 3: Joining me now, as he does each and every week,
Speaker 3: is sky News, Australia's media watchdog. Jared Henderson. Thank you
Speaker 3: so much for joining us on the desk. Now, the
Speaker 3: word misinformation, it's a very weighted miss but let's see
Speaker 3: how it's kind of been wielded as a weapon here
Speaker 3: on the ABC.
Speaker 12: Can you say that you're unequivocally that your campaign did
Speaker 12: not spread any misinformation about Zoe Daniel.
Speaker 4: I'm not aware of any misinformation that was spread at all,
Speaker 4: but that's a making some allegation.
Speaker 6: No, not at all.
Speaker 12: Just there's it was a very very tense campaign and
Speaker 12: just to ask from your side that if it was clean.
Speaker 3: I mean to invoke the word which has connotations. And
Speaker 3: also the reason you ask it is because you're kind
Speaker 3: of inferring that the result isn't legitimate. So I'm going
Speaker 3: to be the first to say election denier. She's kind
Speaker 3: of saying misinformation may have played a part et cetera.
Speaker 3: You don't ask the question if it's not grounded in reality.
Speaker 2: Now, what's happened happened there is that Cellly Sarah is
Speaker 2: running the line that Zoe Daniels campaign was running against
Speaker 2: Tim Wilson because they said Tim Wilson provided campaign provided misinformation.
Speaker 2: But they never produced any evidence of this effect. So
Speaker 2: this is simply an allegation without evidence, sort of running
Speaker 2: the Zoe Daniel line because she lost the election. And
Speaker 2: of course XABC candidate for the Teals, Celisara ABC sort
Speaker 2: of ideological mates where they know one another. I don't know,
Speaker 2: but it's I mean, Tim Wilson was pretty quick to
Speaker 2: pick it up and he said, you know, is this
Speaker 2: the allegation you're making? And it was the allegation she
Speaker 2: was making. I mean she went into denial and said
Speaker 2: it wasn't, but it was. So it's another example of
Speaker 2: the ABC playing along with the Teals. I mean, when
Speaker 2: they before the election, they were promoting them. After the election,
Speaker 2: they're still promoting them or they or they're sort of
Speaker 2: suggesting that they lost, but perhaps they shouldn't have lost.
Speaker 2: If money there wasn't misinformation.
Speaker 6: It surely chill.
Speaker 3: She hasn't done her homework, because you would think there
Speaker 3: would at least be some general proposition behind the words.
Speaker 6: So, for example, well.
Speaker 3: You accused Zoe Daniels of this and that's not what
Speaker 3: her position was, and she calls that misinformation. When he
Speaker 3: pushed her, she goes, oh, I don't know, she hasn't
Speaker 3: Actually she's kind of got a surface level. I know
Speaker 3: the word misinformation is a bad thing. So did you
Speaker 3: do it without even having any basis to.
Speaker 12: Draw it on?
Speaker 2: And it came up at the end of the interview.
Speaker 2: I mean, she just sort of threw it into the
Speaker 2: end of the interview was really on Tim Wilson what
Speaker 2: he was doing, and that went okay, and then at
Speaker 2: the end, well, well you explain yourself misinformation, you know, explain.
Speaker 6: It, Explain what what are we even talking about? You
Speaker 6: can tell you what it is.
Speaker 2: And I'm not aware of anything. I mean, there were
Speaker 2: are a lot of groups involved in that campaign, but
Speaker 2: in terms of Tim Wilson, he didn't say it'll do
Speaker 2: anything that. I mean, there was always an argument about
Speaker 2: something that's understandable but not misinformation.
Speaker 3: Now we talk about some politicians getting a bit of
Speaker 3: an easy go, and there was one till that kind
Speaker 3: of had a run in with a crude comment. We'll
Speaker 3: talk about it in a bit, but let's see how
Speaker 3: the ABC tackled this interview.
Speaker 5: Great to be here, first woman to win Bradfield, first
Speaker 5: independent after being a Liberal seat for seventy five years.
Speaker 5: What does this moment mean?
Speaker 6: What's going on here? Jared Well.
Speaker 2: Before the election, Nicolette Buller got a very soft interview
Speaker 2: on seven point thirty with Sarah Ferguson. Remarkably soft. Now,
Speaker 2: she was just one candidate in one hundred and fifty
Speaker 2: electorates and she narrowly won. I mean, there's been a recount,
Speaker 2: there may be further legal action, we don't really know.
Speaker 2: And now immediately after the election, she's brought in again
Speaker 2: for another soft interview. Now she will have no influence
Speaker 2: of any moment in the new parliament. She's one of
Speaker 2: one hundred and fifty members of parliament. The Labor government's
Speaker 2: got over sixty percent of the seats, so the teals
Speaker 2: will be completely irrelevant policy wise. So she doesn't warrant
Speaker 2: an interview and certainly not a soft interview, and then
Speaker 2: you avoid some tough questions you might have asked her
Speaker 2: before or.
Speaker 4: After the campaign.
Speaker 2: But again it's another example of the ABC promoting the teals.
Speaker 2: They're promoting inner city wealthy candidates who have runners teals
Speaker 2: and campaign on climate change. They do it constantly. But
Speaker 2: this is just the later example. I mean, there was
Speaker 2: no reason to interview her after the campaign. Really, there
Speaker 2: was no reason to interview much before the campaign. But
Speaker 2: she gets a soft run and that's pretty much what
Speaker 2: the ABC does.
Speaker 3: The Well, she also said that hairdresser comment, Yes, right
Speaker 3: about the haircut. It was a crude I don't want
Speaker 3: to repeat it. It doesn't really matter. But there was
Speaker 3: a controversy I guess to.
Speaker 2: Pro well, there was a controversy to probe because she
Speaker 2: said something that she felt to a young female hairdresser
Speaker 2: and she felt the need to apologize after the event.
Speaker 2: So she felt the need to apologize after the event.
Speaker 2: There must have been something gone wrong. She said it
Speaker 2: was a bad attempt at humor. Well, I mean, and
Speaker 2: my point is, what if Tony Abbitt said that about
Speaker 2: a young hairdresser, what do you think Sarah Ferguson would
Speaker 2: have said, you know, will you account for yourself?
Speaker 6: Will you resign?
Speaker 4: You know?
Speaker 2: But if it's Nicolatte Bullerwell.
Speaker 3: She apologized it's all good and also, don't talk about it.
Speaker 6: Yeah, and I'm.
Speaker 3: Inclined to agree. You know, you should get people a
Speaker 3: bit of good faith. I wouldn't some of that good
Speaker 3: faith was given to the other side.
Speaker 2: It was one side. That's my concern too, it. I mean,
Speaker 2: people make bad jokes all the time, all and stuffdown
Speaker 2: made one this week. You know it was a bad joke,
Speaker 2: but I mean he's been pillarid for it. But if
Speaker 2: you make if you're a teal and you make a
Speaker 2: bad jerke, well don't talk about it.
Speaker 3: Definitely now, Laura Tinger, we went into a little bit
Speaker 3: last night, but there has been more good buyers.
Speaker 10: Let's let's have a listen on indulgence, mister speaker. I
Speaker 10: feel like I've had more farewell from Nellie Milburgh this week.
Speaker 10: I'm leaving the gallery. It's been a really long time,
Speaker 10: but I think I'm leaving it in really good hands.
Speaker 11: We're going to miss you enormously from the gallery, Laura,
Speaker 11: and an enormous thank you for your huge contribution to
Speaker 11: political journalism.
Speaker 6: But we will see you.
Speaker 9: Back on this couch.
Speaker 3: They have done ads, they have done news packages. You
Speaker 3: would think that she was retiring and had won some
Speaker 3: very prestigious award on her way out.
Speaker 2: Well, it's like to hear California, you can check out,
Speaker 2: but you never leave. David Spee does a big fair
Speaker 2: well on Insiders to Laura Tiggle, leaving the gory, and
Speaker 2: then he said, but you'll be back on Insiders very soon.
Speaker 6: So she's changing jobs.
Speaker 2: She's changing jobs, that's all she's doing, she said. And
Speaker 2: it happens. I mean they come and go. I mean
Speaker 2: pran Kelly gets to send off and then she comes back,
Speaker 2: and Les Oles gets to send off, and now now
Speaker 2: she's back, and Laura Tingles gets to send up before
Speaker 2: she even leaves me.
Speaker 3: But it's out money as well, right, it's taxpayer funds
Speaker 3: that are being used to promote someone who's literally changing
Speaker 3: their title but remaining with the ABC.
Speaker 2: She's just gone to another job.
Speaker 6: And good luck to her. Good luck to her.
Speaker 3: I don't expect much. I remember she thinks that the
Speaker 3: world might not be ready for her.
Speaker 2: Well, I regret it a bit because she does provide
Speaker 2: a lot of material for me at Mini Watchdogs.
Speaker 10: So I regret it.
Speaker 2: I mean I Hopehape she comes back more often.
Speaker 3: Jared Henderson, thank you so much for joining us. Now,
Speaker 3: that's all the time that we have for this evening
Speaker 3: up next is Newsnight.