Speaker 1: Hello, Welcome to the Media Show. I'm Carol and Russo
Speaker 1: filling in for Jack Howton. This week Big Show Ahead,
Speaker 1: as the ABC admits it ignored a warning about serious
Speaker 1: errors in its coverage of an Afghanistan war story. But
Speaker 1: first on Wednesday night, the Loewy Institute Media Lecture was
Speaker 1: delivered by ABC chair Kim Williams. The tenor of this
Speaker 1: lecture is to discuss the connection between journalism and Australia's
Speaker 1: place in the world. The content of William's speech sounded
Speaker 1: like a benign and obvious common sense to me, with
Speaker 1: the caveat that the walk means more than the talk.
Speaker 1: But in the context of the bonkers world we live in,
Speaker 1: and depending on your view of that world, it could
Speaker 1: have been considered as elite leftist propaganda or a right
Speaker 1: wing Zionus conspiracy the joys of the widening Overton window.
Speaker 1: In his speech, william spoke of the importance of trustworthy
Speaker 1: news and how the truth really matters.
Speaker 2: My address today is on the vital importance of trustworthy
Speaker 2: news and coverage about international affairs. It has a simple theme.
Speaker 2: The truth matters, and I mean really matters, especially right now.
Speaker 2: One can't approach this subject without reference to undoubtedly the
Speaker 2: deepest thinker of the last one hundred years on the
Speaker 2: relationship between politics and the truth. George Orwell or Will
Speaker 2: famously served in the Spanish Civil War and noted how
Speaker 2: while in Spain he continuously read news stories about things
Speaker 2: that quite obviously never actually happened. Small skirmishers he participated
Speaker 2: in involving a few dozen soldiers were written up as
Speaker 2: huge battles complete with tanks and aircraft. People he knew
Speaker 2: to be loyal were announced as traitors and accused of
Speaker 2: conspiracy to betray the republic. He himself was denounced as
Speaker 2: a fascist. All of it pure invention, made up by
Speaker 2: propagandists to suit the needs of fascists, communists, and others. Famously,
Speaker 2: he described this trend towards inventing facts for political ends
Speaker 2: as frightening because and I quote it often gives me
Speaker 2: the feeling that the very concept of objective truth is
Speaker 2: fading out of the world.
Speaker 1: Pertinent way to kick things off, and who better to
Speaker 1: be a historical reference to George Orwell, the genius author
Speaker 1: of the dystopian novel nineteen eighty four, which warned us
Speaker 1: all of the ministry of truth. It was interesting him
Speaker 1: speaking about populous demagogues, the communists and the fascists and
Speaker 1: how they use news to broadcast what they think should
Speaker 1: have happened according to the politics of the day. And
Speaker 1: while he opined that fascists and communists were the worst,
Speaker 1: he said they were not alone.
Speaker 3: And I think that is probably right.
Speaker 1: People may not carry those precise monikers or fit neatly
Speaker 1: in those boxes, but they can carry those tendencies and
Speaker 1: will attempt to exercise power where there's a failure to
Speaker 1: protect freedom of speech, where political expediency takes priority over
Speaker 1: objective truth. Williams went on to speak about news broadcast
Speaker 1: during World War Two and how the BBC was considered
Speaker 1: the least censored and the most trustworthy news.
Speaker 2: The BBC the truth, reliable, facts, trust. These things went
Speaker 2: together along with freedom and still do. The story of
Speaker 2: the BBC in World War II tells us something. Freedom
Speaker 2: and the truth go together, and when truth is absent,
Speaker 2: tyranny is never far away.
Speaker 1: Absolutely right, and are the good old days? A far
Speaker 1: cry from a headline this week where the BBC allegedly
Speaker 1: told the director of the Nova Massacre film we Will
Speaker 1: Dance Again, not to discribe Mussus terrorists what should they
Speaker 1: have been described as freedom fighters? Pastry chefs. Like the ABC,
Speaker 1: the BBC is a shadow of its former self and
Speaker 1: one can only rely on a glorious legacy for so long. Anyway,
Speaker 1: Williams went on. He spoke about how a strong media,
Speaker 1: led by people who believe in professional journalistic ethics is
Speaker 1: one of our most important democratic assets. Yep, agreed, no
Speaker 1: objection from me, and that misinformation has become politics by
Speaker 1: another means, and disinformation has become war by another means.
Speaker 1: Interesting analysis. More on that with my panel, and then
Speaker 1: he said this.
Speaker 2: The task for people like me is to create more
Speaker 2: opportunities for you three and your journalistic colleagues to investigate,
Speaker 2: inform and report. It's my intention as the chair of
Speaker 2: the ABC, with my colleagues on the board of the ABC,
Speaker 2: to do just that. I, like many others, live in
Speaker 2: eternal hope.
Speaker 1: And then towards the back end of his speech, he
Speaker 1: made two following comments.
Speaker 2: First, this Australia has an interest in a duty as
Speaker 2: an affluent democratic and former imperialist nation in our region
Speaker 2: to do all we can to promote a thriving democratic
Speaker 2: media and counter the spread of misinformation, disinformation.
Speaker 3: And censorship, and a bit later this.
Speaker 2: And it's why everyone who cares about Australian, regional and
Speaker 2: global democracy, no matter what news organization they work for,
Speaker 2: must also fight to ensure George Orwell's nightmare vision of
Speaker 2: a world in which objective truth cannot survive does not
Speaker 2: come true.
Speaker 3: Objective truth.
Speaker 1: Ironically, words like misinformation and disinformation are offer banded around
Speaker 1: in order to conceal objective truth. And that's the issue.
Speaker 1: It's a suppressive, ill conceived solution to a problem which
Speaker 1: can be better remedied by more openness, more ideas and
Speaker 1: frankly a lot less government. Overall, William's speech it hit
Speaker 1: the right notes. It told me everything I wanted to hear.
Speaker 1: But as I said earlier, the walk is more important
Speaker 1: than the talk. And my gratuitous advice to Kim Williams
Speaker 1: in the immortal words of Limp Biscuit, don't write checks
Speaker 1: your ass can't cash. Joining me on the show this
Speaker 1: week is six PR radio hosts Oliver Peterson and the
Speaker 1: Australians Darren Davidson. Darren, what were your overall thoughts on
Speaker 1: the speech and misinformation? Is it the new politics and
Speaker 1: disinformation the new War.
Speaker 4: I think no one would ready disagree with the argument
Speaker 4: that Kim Williams put forward. The timing is very unfortunate.
Speaker 4: The ABC appears to have just been caught red handed
Speaker 4: tampering with video footage to amplify force charges against SAS
Speaker 4: former SAS platoon leader Heston Russell's so Kim himself in
Speaker 4: the speech acknowledged that there's not going to investigation into that.
Speaker 4: I think the thing that a lot of people would
Speaker 4: take issue with is the fact that one the ABC
Speaker 4: has argued that we've drawn the video, but the management
Speaker 4: has argued that the reporters involved in the story were
Speaker 4: not actually involved in the doctoring of the footage, which
Speaker 4: I think is a very hard position to argue given
Speaker 4: the high personal state those reporters had in the story.
Speaker 4: They should be across the brief, they should know what's
Speaker 4: going into the video and be across the editing process
Speaker 4: as part of that package that story. And I think
Speaker 4: the second thing is that Kim and others tend to
Speaker 4: position all of this as being part of a cultural war,
Speaker 4: when in fact it's really just shoddy journalism. And you
Speaker 4: know that goes all the way to the top and
Speaker 4: people should be held accountable for that. You know, lots
Speaker 4: of media outlets make a state. It's an unfortunate part
Speaker 4: of the process from time to time. And the ABC's
Speaker 4: got a fortunate track record of making a lot of
Speaker 4: these big, high profile mistakes lately.
Speaker 1: And Olie hard to argue with a lot of things
Speaker 1: in that speech, but you know, the ABC is quite
Speaker 1: the staff run collective. Does Williams have the opportunity or
Speaker 1: the ability to actually hold his own organization to the
Speaker 1: fundamentals that he's talking about.
Speaker 5: Well, he's come out of the blocks, hasn't her Carrow
Speaker 5: since he's been the chair. And you know, as you
Speaker 5: mentioned before, you can talk the talk, but now he's
Speaker 5: got to walk the walk with this. And as Darren
Speaker 5: just said, the timing of this with the Heston Russell example,
Speaker 5: is just a terrible time for.
Speaker 3: Kim Williams to be doing this speech.
Speaker 5: But you know what, it sends a shot across the
Speaker 5: bows all the journalists at the ABC that they have
Speaker 5: been put on notice. And King has not been backward
Speaker 5: in coming forward since he's been in the position. He's
Speaker 5: been talking about the impartiality, the requirements under the charter
Speaker 5: for what ABC journalists must hear too in their coverage
Speaker 5: of whatever it is. So look, I think he's obviously
Speaker 5: ruffling a few fits. He's going to be upsetting a
Speaker 5: lot of the rank and file, and particularly those journalists
Speaker 5: at the ABC who have been there for decades. But
Speaker 5: he's got a task, he's got a job to do
Speaker 5: and I think this is probably what a lot of
Speaker 5: Australia has actually been crying out for in the leadership
Speaker 5: of the ABC. And obviously he's making changes, he's got
Speaker 5: a new managing director coming in, He's the news division
Speaker 5: is on notice. The Heston Russell example, though, it is
Speaker 5: just beggars belief that this could ever go to air.
Speaker 5: The fact that stuff came into the lawyers and was
Speaker 5: not passed on. What's going on in the process is there,
Speaker 5: and that the fundamentally the team has been let down,
Speaker 5: but the buck stops with the producer of the program,
Speaker 5: the reporter of the program. They're going through a warts
Speaker 5: and all process through October and it is, yes, embarrassing,
Speaker 5: but something that we want to hold the higher standards
Speaker 5: obviously in the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and.
Speaker 1: Perhaps something like this happening kind of also sends a
Speaker 1: bit of a shot across.
Speaker 3: The bout to the staff.
Speaker 1: Absolutely, because you know, it's framing what his leadership intends
Speaker 1: to look like so that we don't have issues like
Speaker 1: this cropping up. So I think while it's unfortunate, it's
Speaker 1: probably equally a very good example, one example that we
Speaker 1: wish never happen, a very good example of what happens
Speaker 1: when you don't hit those notes.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it does.
Speaker 5: And I think you know, we all operate in this
Speaker 5: twenty four to seven cycle. We all operate obviously in
Speaker 5: a social media cycle now as well, where every single
Speaker 5: thing everybody says he's scrutinized, whether you work in the
Speaker 5: commercial or the public media. And I know that, you know,
Speaker 5: when we get into the Disinformation Bill and the like,
Speaker 5: it is a minefield for everybody to navigate at the moments,
Speaker 5: at every particular contributor or stakeholder within our industry, Carrow
Speaker 5: is under more scrutiny than they probably ever have there.
Speaker 1: Absolutely, and speaking of the ABC and not getting it
Speaker 1: quite right, and this alleged doctored footage Debarker, well, it
Speaker 1: continues to be the gift that keeps on giving anyway,
Speaker 1: it turns out the ABC was notified multiple times and
Speaker 1: not just once, as it has claimed about serious errors
Speaker 1: in its coverage of this military operation involving Australian soldiers
Speaker 1: in Afghanistan in twenty twelve, but it failed to address
Speaker 1: the problems. And although the ABC has announced there'll be
Speaker 1: an independent investigation into this incident, David Anderson, the managing
Speaker 1: director of the ABC, has admitted that their legal team
Speaker 1: was notified about the issue with this audio, but did
Speaker 1: not pass on this information to the news team, Darren.
Speaker 1: David Anderson has made quite the admission here. How much
Speaker 1: does this affect the ABC's credibility.
Speaker 4: It's very bad. It sharp's public trust in public broadcast
Speaker 4: journalism and the roads audience numbers and underpins the declines
Speaker 4: they've had, particularly on radio. So it's a really bad
Speaker 4: result all around them. And ultimately, as you've just noted,
Speaker 4: Kim and management must take responsibility for this. That story
Speaker 4: that you mentioned that that was the story that was
Speaker 4: broken in The Australian last Monday. It's absolutely extraordinary and
Speaker 4: I think we eagerly await the outcome of the investigation
Speaker 4: to this incident and to find out exactly what happened
Speaker 4: there and why that information, that vital information wasn't passed
Speaker 4: along the chain.
Speaker 1: And Ollie, why do you think so they've announced an investigation,
Speaker 1: but why make that sort of a mission ahead of
Speaker 1: the investigation.
Speaker 3: What's that about?
Speaker 5: Well, I reckon they're trying to get in front of
Speaker 5: it now because they've been completely embarrassed by it, firstly, Caro. Secondly,
Speaker 5: they've obviously got a little bit of a predetermined outcome
Speaker 5: with Alan Sunderland coming back in to do this inquiry
Speaker 5: and report back by the end of October. We've already
Speaker 5: identified there is a problem between the legal team and
Speaker 5: the program team. So why that information was obviously never
Speaker 5: passed on for a start, that's got to be the
Speaker 5: first question that's asked. Heads have got a role though
Speaker 5: that there's got to be responsibility in this because you know,
Speaker 5: we are ruining potentially here, and there is obviously before
Speaker 5: the courts, and there's there's allegations, there's deformation suits. But
Speaker 5: this is a very very serious charge against As Darren
Speaker 5: said here, it erodes your trust in public journalism. So
Speaker 5: if there's doctored footage that's gone to air, the eyes
Speaker 5: haven't been dotted, the t's haven't been crossed.
Speaker 3: Where does that all stem from.
Speaker 5: Obviously they're trying to take some heat out of what
Speaker 5: they're expecting to find by.
Speaker 1: The end off tape of the iceberg, something that's already there.
Speaker 4: Carrow.
Speaker 3: I think we know we'll see sooner rather later what
Speaker 3: turns up there.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think it will be interesting. Anyway, we'll take
Speaker 1: a quick break and when we're back how the government's
Speaker 1: Misinformation Bill will do nothing but start feel legitimate debate.
Speaker 1: Welcome back, and we are not done on misinformation now.
Speaker 1: Let's move on to the government's insidious Misinformation Bill and
Speaker 1: the dismal fact that Albanezi and co. Are only giving
Speaker 1: Australians one week to make submissions to a Senate inquiry
Speaker 1: on this proposed piece of legislation. LMP Senator Matt Canavan
Speaker 1: didn't miss when he posted the Labor Party is giving
Speaker 1: people just a week to make submissions on their plans
Speaker 1: to censor the Australian people. True to form, they're trying
Speaker 1: to silence people before they even have the powers to
Speaker 1: do so. Get your submissions in here asap. Submissions close
Speaker 1: on thirty six of September, So if you do want
Speaker 1: to have your peace, I politely suggest you get onto it.
Speaker 1: In the following days, infectious diseases specialist Nick Coatesworth confirmed
Speaker 1: that he had made a submission to the inquiry. He
Speaker 1: posted on x the branding of legitimate debate on COVID
Speaker 1: as misinformation during both the pandemic and ongoing has provoked
Speaker 1: me to write a submission to the Senate Committee overseeing
Speaker 1: the Combating Misinformation and Disinformation Bill. He continued, any.
Speaker 6: Thing that's misinformation and disinformation that affects preventive health care
Speaker 6: or for example, public health or pandemic response. And I
Speaker 6: just looked at that and thought, Gee, after what we've
Speaker 6: been through and all the uncertainty about what misinformation and
Speaker 6: disinformation was, how can we actually have a law that
Speaker 6: starts to define those sort of things in a way
Speaker 6: that can be contested in a sort of legal sense.
Speaker 1: And if that isn't enough, he also said, let's teach
Speaker 1: our kids critical thought and how to question and debate,
Speaker 1: not how to dismiss or reject other's opinions or ideas
Speaker 1: with random accusations of misinformation. Remember, this bloke is an
Speaker 1: infectious diseases expert, not a nonpracticing GP, not a paleontologist.
Speaker 3: Someone who's a.
Speaker 1: Specialist in this area, and it appears someone who's sick
Speaker 1: to the back teeth of the feel good, budding authoritarian
Speaker 1: medical hoota suffocating either existing or evolving best practice by
Speaker 1: throwing around the world misinformation like confetti to silence debate. Ollie,
Speaker 1: A week feels like a conveniently short period of time.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I think it's going to actually bypass most people
Speaker 5: and not even realize what's.
Speaker 3: Happening here, Karen.
Speaker 5: I think that a lot of australiay that there are
Speaker 5: so many issues on the political agenda at the moment,
Speaker 5: this is one that hasn't quite got the coverage which
Speaker 5: probably would or get the airtime that it probably would,
Speaker 5: And I think that this is something that we really need.
Speaker 3: Some time to critically think and debate.
Speaker 5: Absolutely, you don't want pedled artificial intelligence, fake news and
Speaker 5: the like. But as Nick Coatsworth says, there, we've got
Speaker 5: to be able to have open debate. We've got to
Speaker 5: be able to have critical thought. We can't just be
Speaker 5: truth telling and be told this is the absolute truth.
Speaker 5: You've got to be able to have that robust abate.
Speaker 5: That's why we live in a democracy. Carrow and I
Speaker 5: think if there's something that a government of the day
Speaker 5: doesn't like that's out there and they put the pressure
Speaker 5: or a government select committee, you know, authority, whether it's
Speaker 5: act or whoever it is, says that's got to come
Speaker 5: down the pressure on those sorts of things. I just
Speaker 5: I think there is so much of a gray area
Speaker 5: in this which is not being even thoroughly explained to
Speaker 5: the Australian people right now that this one's just going
Speaker 5: to go through when people go hold on what's happened? Why?
Speaker 5: Why can't we have that? So one week is certainly
Speaker 5: not enough and.
Speaker 1: I feel like the overall impact is a net negative. Darren,
Speaker 1: have we learned nothing from COVID?
Speaker 4: I totally agree that everything that you've said there. I
Speaker 4: think crossbench senators when the bill reaches the Upper House
Speaker 4: should proceed with extreme caution. You know, it's not in
Speaker 4: question that tech monopolies and the big social media platforms
Speaker 4: should be subject to Australia's laws and regulations. But this
Speaker 4: new legislation that's been proposed, it's a powerful censorship tool
Speaker 4: which can potentially enable governments and vested interest groups the
Speaker 4: ability to actually exploit and stifle political and public debate.
Speaker 4: And that's a very very, very dangerous development. And as
Speaker 4: you've said, I think this is kind of this is
Speaker 4: kind of flown in under the radar, but it's potentially
Speaker 4: very very dangerous.
Speaker 6: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Absolutely, Now moving on, one of my favorite pastimes is
Speaker 1: watching the left of our itself. Now, you would all
Speaker 1: be aware of the Robodett Royal Commission, and you may
Speaker 1: know that journalist and author Rick Morton.
Speaker 3: Wrote a book about it.
Speaker 1: He titled A Meanstreak, a moral vacuum, a dodgy debt generator,
Speaker 1: and a multi billion dollar government shakedown. Now, Morton, to
Speaker 1: his credit, is scathing of everyone involved or connected with Robodet.
Speaker 1: And whether you agree with the premise of his arguments,
Speaker 1: that's totally another matter, but it's fair to say no
Speaker 1: one escapes criticism. Morton is also a senior reporter at
Speaker 1: the Sat Day Paper, and this week he took a
Speaker 1: swing at his own masthead for an opinion piece he
Speaker 1: described as unethical and a betrayal of actual reporting. The
Speaker 1: piece in question, well, Chris Wallace, a professor at the
Speaker 1: University of Canberra and a columnist for the paper, appendant
Speaker 1: opinion piece defending her longtime friend and former Department of
Speaker 1: Human Services Secretary Rane Leon regarding her involvement in robodebt
Speaker 1: Moreton and accusus Wallace of misrepresenting the findings of the
Speaker 1: Royal Commission, following which Waller said she was happy to
Speaker 1: discuss forty years of neoliberal corrosion of the public service
Speaker 1: over a kuppa. It was incredible to watch.
Speaker 3: Ollie.
Speaker 1: You might not agree with everything that Rick has said
Speaker 1: in his book or what.
Speaker 3: He said on me.
Speaker 1: He's said a lot about the Royal Commission. He's definitely
Speaker 1: not run cover for anyone.
Speaker 5: No, And he's brave, isn't he Like he's very brave
Speaker 5: to be taking on his own publication. But you know what,
Speaker 5: I cherdn good on him, Like if that's if that's
Speaker 5: the the line he wants to take, you want to
Speaker 5: speak out against his own publication. Again, it's a brave
Speaker 5: it's a brave mood that I think he's made. But
Speaker 5: you know, good luck to him. I know he said
Speaker 5: subsequently had a really bad weekend, he had an ill dog,
Speaker 5: and that was obviously contributing to where he was personally
Speaker 5: when he decided to fire off those tweets. But this is,
Speaker 5: you know, very interesting when you see.
Speaker 3: That play out publicly.
Speaker 5: Now, that's the sort of that's the sort of line
Speaker 5: I might take up internally and not necessarily put it
Speaker 5: out on social media. Might just have a quiet chat
Speaker 5: to my content manager or do I you know, radio director,
Speaker 5: to say, oh, what are.
Speaker 3: We doing here? Right?
Speaker 5: I think these are sometimes conversations we can take off
Speaker 5: air carrows so we don't have to have the public meltdown.
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, it's it's unusual how that doesn't happen probably
Speaker 1: often as it should. In the premise of Wallace's article though,
Speaker 1: it was quite something. It was a very interesting position
Speaker 1: for her to take.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 4: Look, I mean, I don't think which is a great
Speaker 4: place to take these kind of personal spats with other journalists.
Speaker 4: I don't think it's a great look in front of
Speaker 4: the readers, partners and other kind of stakeholders in your paper,
Speaker 4: And it just doesn't look very professional. And you know,
Speaker 4: noted that Rick said he had a bad week that
Speaker 4: were being said. I think, you know, he just looks
Speaker 4: like he's getting a bit too. The story is far
Speaker 4: too personal for him. He is very passionate journalist and
Speaker 4: he's a very good journalist as well, but it's just
Speaker 4: not a great look, and I think, you know, he
Speaker 4: should just let his journey as did the talking. And
Speaker 4: you know, the great thing about newspapers is that you know,
Speaker 4: when they're working really really well, that they have views
Speaker 4: from both sides and representing lots of different positions across
Speaker 4: the spectrum, and that that should be fine and he
Speaker 4: should have confidence in Money's doing that he can be
Speaker 4: an opposing view even if he doesn't agree with that.
Speaker 4: So yeah, I think he should just take that offline
Speaker 4: and hopefully we don't see that again.
Speaker 1: Yeah, fair enough. Now, before we finish up tonight, I
Speaker 1: want to get to your stories of the week.
Speaker 3: Ollie.
Speaker 1: Let's start with you.
Speaker 3: What's yours? It has to be negative gearing, Carrow. I mean,
Speaker 3: it really does.
Speaker 5: How in the world the government thought, with all the
Speaker 5: issues on the agenda at the moment, they thought it
Speaker 5: was a good idea to fly the kite on negative
Speaker 5: gearing and see which way the wind blows. I'm actually
Speaker 5: just gobsmack sitting here on a Friday night thinking that
Speaker 5: the Prime.
Speaker 3: Minister and the Treasurer thought let's just float it.
Speaker 5: Out there for twenty four to forty eight hours and
Speaker 5: confuse all Australians because I tell you what talk back
Speaker 5: radio I was.
Speaker 3: Going to be lit up in meltdown certainly did fabulous.
Speaker 3: That does not surprised me.
Speaker 1: Darren.
Speaker 3: Your story of the.
Speaker 4: Week Storry from Caroline Overingturning in The Australian Today, head
Speaker 4: of the Grand Final tomorrow. It's I know too, you know,
Speaker 4: brash confidence, swaggering Sydney and other Swaneas before they take
Speaker 4: on the lines tomorrow. That's not it doesn't make great
Speaker 4: reading for anyone in Melbourne where I am right now,
Speaker 4: but it's a it's a fun read and yeah, go
Speaker 4: the Swaneas.
Speaker 1: Beautiful Darren Davidson, Oliver Peterson, thank you so much for
Speaker 1: your time this evening. That's all we've got time for tonight.
Speaker 1: The Media Show will be back next Friday at the
Speaker 1: same time.