Speaker 1: This it's the Media Show. Hello, welcome to the Media Show.
Speaker 1: I'm Caroline Derusso coming up on the show tonight and
Speaker 1: we'll take a look at the documentary that got the
Speaker 1: BBC in hot.
Speaker 2: Water so much so they've apologized.
Speaker 1: Trump's Joint Address to Congress was watched across Australia and
Speaker 1: the globe, but the progressive media couldn't help it slam
Speaker 1: even its warmest moments, and Jared Henderson joins me to
Speaker 1: discuss the project's soft touch when it comes to the
Speaker 1: teals despite a federal election being just around the corner.
Speaker 1: But first, with Cyclone Alfred bearing down on Queensland, the
Speaker 1: progressive media couldn't help but call it unusual and try
Speaker 1: and link it to climate change. Show all the location
Speaker 1: of the cyclone maybe further south than usual, but cyclones
Speaker 1: are not a foreign concept to Queensland, as this post
Speaker 1: from Senator Matt Canavan shows, And again another post from
Speaker 1: Matt Canavan referencing the Courier mail Think showing Queensland is
Speaker 1: actually getting less cyclones and less severe cyclones. But look,
Speaker 1: let's not let that a wee bit of empirical evidence
Speaker 1: that get in the.
Speaker 2: Way of a good yarn So the Guardian they went with.
Speaker 1: Is climate change supercharging tropical cyclone Alfred as it powers
Speaker 1: towards Australia And the ABC proffered what's unusual about Cyclone Alfred?
Speaker 1: And is climate change affecting how it moves towards the coast? Now,
Speaker 1: while Alfred is heading towards a densely populated part of
Speaker 1: the country, it is expected to hit as a Category
Speaker 1: two cyclone. And yes, we need to take these things
Speaker 1: very seriously. No, we don't need to hyperventilate about climate change.
Speaker 1: Joining me now for more on this is my panel,
Speaker 1: Sky News contributor James Bolt, and the p Our Council
Speaker 1: is managing director Christy McSweeney. Now, James, while I think
Speaker 1: more broadly the climate change hysteria it's a beta somewhat.
Speaker 1: Is the temptation to link cyclones to climate change just
Speaker 1: too much for the lefties in the media to pass up?
Speaker 3: Yeah, I got to say when I read these articles,
Speaker 3: I just think, no matter how hard we try, we
Speaker 3: are never going to be free of religion, because it's
Speaker 3: impossible not to read these articles and not see the
Speaker 3: inheritance of the gods are angry with us, and we
Speaker 3: are about to be punished. As Matt Canavan points out,
Speaker 3: cyclones aren't that are rare when you think about Queensland.
Speaker 3: But because the human brain just seeks narrative, because it
Speaker 3: needs to see the world as a battle between good
Speaker 3: and evil, there are so many people that are just
Speaker 3: going to want to be told that if we just
Speaker 3: burned a little less carbon, that if we just built
Speaker 3: a few more wind turbines, then we'd be free of
Speaker 3: these cyclones. So I think we are going to see
Speaker 3: articles such as this, with all this hysteria until the
Speaker 3: next great modern religion comes along.
Speaker 1: And Christy Obviously, we need to take these significant weather
Speaker 1: events seriously and we need to be practical about them.
Speaker 2: Does this sort of does this sort.
Speaker 1: Of narrative, this sort of conversation distract from being practical
Speaker 1: and theoretical and perhaps it's, you know, frankly a bit
Speaker 1: unhelpful when we're right in the middle of it.
Speaker 2: Well, I think it is distracting.
Speaker 4: Caroline, You're right, you and I are both from Western Australia.
Speaker 4: The northwest of Western Australia has a.
Speaker 2: Lot of cyclones.
Speaker 4: They are regular occurrence there as they are in Queensland,
Speaker 4: and very Interestingly, we don't get this concentration of media
Speaker 4: leading reporting around climate change in Western Australia. When we
Speaker 4: have these cyclone events. It's very different watching the reporting
Speaker 4: of this on the East Coast, and perhaps that is
Speaker 4: because the bulk of Australia's media are on the East
Speaker 4: Coast and there's a bit of group think going on.
Speaker 4: And I'd also like to look at the trajectory of
Speaker 4: how it's been reported, and it's moved away very much
Speaker 4: from that emergency services response leading with those issues as
Speaker 4: the lead of the reports.
Speaker 2: And that's what reporting should do when we.
Speaker 4: Talk about natural disasters and cyclones. People have their homes
Speaker 4: at risk and are looking to media to provide them
Speaker 4: with information, to prove and to be the voice of
Speaker 4: those emergency response mechanisms that they can follow to ensure
Speaker 4: they're safe. We don't have to clutter it with leading
Speaker 4: with stories to look at issues surrounding that. It's a
Speaker 4: bit of a blurring of what the media's actual role
Speaker 4: is in emergency response from disaster, isn't.
Speaker 2: It It is?
Speaker 1: And I think that's actually a really good insight that
Speaker 1: the Melbourne and syd Sydney Canberra centric news is a
Speaker 1: long way from where we have cyclones in the northern
Speaker 1: part of the country.
Speaker 2: So I think that's very, very fair.
Speaker 1: Now over to the BBC, And in February, the BBC
Speaker 1: aired a documentary Gaza, How to Survive a War Zone.
Speaker 2: Here's a clip.
Speaker 5: My names are the Law, I'm thirteen years old. I'm
Speaker 5: stuck here in Gaza. Have you ever wondered what you'd
Speaker 5: do if your world was destroyed? Could you live in
Speaker 5: a tent, raise your baby?
Speaker 2: Would you help people? Would you try and have some fun?
Speaker 5: Most important?
Speaker 2: Could you stay alive? After all this?
Speaker 5: You could say, we're experts, so let me tell you
Speaker 5: our story.
Speaker 2: Who knows one day you might need it? Raw, greedy
Speaker 2: and well more than a little do you?
Speaker 1: So much so that the BBC apologized and pulled the film.
Speaker 2: Now, why is that?
Speaker 1: Well, amongst other things, freelance journalist David Collier uncovered that
Speaker 1: the boy at the heart of the documentary, thirteen year
Speaker 1: old Abdollah, is the son of a Hamas official, and yes,
Speaker 1: he was paid for his role in the film. Now, James,
Speaker 1: what were the other low lights in the production of
Speaker 1: this documentary? And how on earth does this stuff just
Speaker 1: go so wrong?
Speaker 6: Well?
Speaker 3: We have Another child who appeared in the documentary has
Speaker 3: previously been photographed holding a gun and standing next to
Speaker 3: a Hamas fighter, and a cameraman who worked on the
Speaker 3: projects once shared a video of an Israeli soldier murdered,
Speaker 3: saying it should be watched a million times. So we
Speaker 3: clearly have an issue here. But what's interesting to me
Speaker 3: is the BBC's reaction to this because they're trying to
Speaker 3: put all of the blame on the makers, which is
Speaker 3: this company called Hoyo Films. They say, okay, well, Hoyo
Speaker 3: didn't cough up that this kid had a link to Hamas.
Speaker 3: We asked about it constantly, but Hoyo didn't tell us
Speaker 3: until it was too late, and that any payment is
Speaker 3: the result of Hoio Films is making a decision and
Speaker 3: not the BBC. But the problem is that the BBC
Speaker 3: edit it is on them. If there was even a
Speaker 3: one percent chance that your projects might be just a
Speaker 3: tool of Hamas propaganda, you do not air it, especially
Speaker 3: with taxpayer money. So it is just an absolute debacle
Speaker 3: for the BBC.
Speaker 2: I think that's right, Christy.
Speaker 1: I mean this is a bit more than just a
Speaker 1: whoopsie daisy, right, This is a very very serious failure.
Speaker 2: The BBC, like the ABC, you know, cops a lot
Speaker 2: of heat often.
Speaker 1: About what they produce and whether it's balanced or not.
Speaker 1: But does something like this have a long term impact
Speaker 1: on the BBC's credibility.
Speaker 4: Well, I think it does from a public perception point
Speaker 4: of view. And what it also does is lays bear
Speaker 4: the supply chain in how documentaries are edged. And we
Speaker 4: see here where the supply chain through to people receiving
Speaker 4: funding to produce that documentary and then selling it to
Speaker 4: the ABC, to the BBC, and then the BBC and
Speaker 4: the production company, possibly working together or possibly not, we
Speaker 4: don't know, but no doubt they would have had to
Speaker 4: make agreements with that production company to ensure the filming
Speaker 4: of that documentary was delivered on time, and there would
Speaker 4: have been some supply chain management in that where everybody
Speaker 4: obviously has the same ideology and thinks the same because
Speaker 4: nobody in that supply chain has questioned it. Now, where
Speaker 4: did the production company get the participants for this documentary?
Speaker 4: How were they sourced? Did they ask the government? And
Speaker 4: in which case, of course, that government is likely to
Speaker 4: be her mask or her mask controlled. And so it
Speaker 4: seem says the process of manipulation very easily. That's been
Speaker 4: ongoing here. Nobody has bothered across that production supply chain
Speaker 4: to actually check because they're all on the same side
Speaker 4: of it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, there are some definite questions that could have been
Speaker 1: asked a little earlier. Now on to Australian domestic politics.
Speaker 1: And while there's never a dull moment in politics, and
Speaker 1: consequently never a dull moment in the media coverage of it.
Speaker 1: Now you recall prior to the twenty twenty two federal election,
Speaker 1: the media was obsessed with roots and pork barreling. Remember
Speaker 1: the hysteria around car parks and sports grants and the
Speaker 1: desperate need to have a Federal Integrity Commission to tidy
Speaker 1: it all up. We'll roll into twenty twenty five and
Speaker 1: Kriche is still obsessed with Peter Dutton and anything the.
Speaker 2: Coalition is or may spend money on.
Speaker 1: Margaret Reynolds laments that as a former senator, I know
Speaker 1: Australians are tired of pork barreling and.
Speaker 2: Dutton special grants, but.
Speaker 1: There doesn't quite seem to be the same cynical view
Speaker 1: being taken of Labour's prom A six hundred and forty
Speaker 1: four million dollars spend for fifty urgent care clinics which
Speaker 1: just happened to magically be slated for marginal seats. Christy,
Speaker 1: you were very close to the last federal campaign, and
Speaker 1: prior to the last election, the media went very hard
Speaker 1: on the coalition when it came to allegation support barreling.
Speaker 1: They don't seem to be as curious of the government
Speaker 1: this time around.
Speaker 2: No, I don't think they do.
Speaker 4: And of course marginal seats and the urgent care clinics.
Speaker 4: Another point I'd like to make is that Labour's actually
Speaker 4: been embarrassed the last three or four years to send
Speaker 4: MPs out to these urgent care clinics that they've funded
Speaker 4: at the last election because a lot of them have
Speaker 4: actually stopped bock billing, so you can go to an
Speaker 4: urgent care clinic, but you will have to pay it
Speaker 4: for it. So that's something that they're trying to rectify
Speaker 4: with their eight and a half billion Medicare funding. So
Speaker 4: it's been a bit of an embarrassment from the start.
Speaker 4: That's point one. But point two this sort of pails
Speaker 4: into significance, doesn't it. Over fifteen hundred dollars grant given
Speaker 4: to a gun club that someone.
Speaker 2: Was once a member of.
Speaker 4: In a coalition government, it is a lot of pork
Speaker 4: barreling going along. We've seen it here with Victorian Libor Toory.
Speaker 4: There's an election coming up in Victoria November next year.
Speaker 4: They've well and truly fired the starting gun on their
Speaker 4: pork barreling too. With various road funding being announced.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and someone's got to paper over the suburban rail loop,
Speaker 1: I suppose.
Speaker 2: And it seems that federal government is doing.
Speaker 1: A fair bit of that to help out Victorian Labor
Speaker 1: and James. The urgent care clinics are just one example.
Speaker 1: The major party's plans to speed up housing construction is another.
Speaker 1: But again it's not only the last government versus this government,
Speaker 1: but even within as between the reporting on the major
Speaker 1: parties during this election it seems to be quite different.
Speaker 1: Do you think the voters will notice?
Speaker 3: Well, I've got to say I think SKYE News Australian
Speaker 3: and all of our news corps, I think there's been
Speaker 3: some really good reporting on Labour pork as much as
Speaker 3: the other organizations have been reporting on Liberal pork barreling.
Speaker 3: And I got to say I am just very happy
Speaker 3: to see any reporting about pork barreling at all. I
Speaker 3: think the winners and losers mentality that gets into Australian
Speaker 3: elections about which party is going to do more for me.
Speaker 3: I think it's one of the great sicknesses of Australia
Speaker 3: and pretty much Western democracy. I mean, we have both parties.
Speaker 3: They just say these beautiful, eloquent things about fiscal responsibility
Speaker 3: and we can't leave this massive debt burden to the
Speaker 3: next generation, and that it's completely all undone. Every time
Speaker 3: there's an election year, I think it's just every time
Speaker 3: a political party tries to just get out the checkbook
Speaker 3: just to buy a few more it's knowing that when
Speaker 3: the eventual bill is due that they're all either going
Speaker 3: to be well out of politics and back in the
Speaker 3: cushy lobby jobs. I think the reporting needs to stay.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think that's I think that's a very very
Speaker 1: fair comment. James Bolt, Christy mcswainey, thank you so much
Speaker 1: for your time. Now up next and we head over
Speaker 1: to the US to take a look at how other
Speaker 1: progressive media in the States is struggling to cope still struggling.
Speaker 2: To cope with Trump two point zero.
Speaker 1: Welcome back, to Stars and Gripes, where we tear apart
Speaker 1: the actions of the bitter activists masquerading as journalists in
Speaker 1: the United States. Now, this week, we were all glued
Speaker 1: to the screen as Donald Trump delivered his Joint Address
Speaker 1: to Congress, a ninety plus minute speech, the longest in
Speaker 1: over sixty years, was full of the expected and the unexpected,
Speaker 1: delivered in trademark Trump's style.
Speaker 2: Here's one of the best bits.
Speaker 7: Joining us said the gallery tonight is a young man
Speaker 7: who truly loves our police.
Speaker 6: His name is DJ.
Speaker 7: Daniel is thirteen years old, and he has always dreamed
Speaker 7: of becoming a police officer. Twenty eighteen, DJ was diagnosed
Speaker 7: with brain cancer. The doctors gave him five months at
Speaker 7: most to live, and tonight, DJ, We're going to do
Speaker 7: you the biggest honor of them all. I am asking
Speaker 7: our new Secret Service Director, Sean Curran to officially make
Speaker 7: you an agent of the United States Secret Service.
Speaker 2: And this is the young boy's story.
Speaker 8: I had thirteen brain surgery. That's how many times my
Speaker 8: personality has changed. And that's something that you don't hear
Speaker 8: from a termity old child. They have five months to live.
Speaker 8: I'm gonna keep on going in some of my gas
Speaker 8: tanks right outy. And that's when God calls you home.
Speaker 8: You never know when God's gonna call you home. I
Speaker 8: wouldn't be here if it wasn't for my dad. I
Speaker 8: know he's pretty proud proud of me, and I'm pretty
Speaker 8: proud of him too. And I like to thank President
Speaker 8: Trump because if it wasn't for him, I wouldn't be
Speaker 8: here today.
Speaker 2: And he even got to visit the Oval Office. Now
Speaker 2: you think that.
Speaker 1: Everyone would just embrace that young boy, his story and
Speaker 1: the very kind honor bestowed upon him, But no. Rachel
Speaker 1: Maddow from MSNBC had this to say for.
Speaker 2: The record, and this is disgusting.
Speaker 9: The President made a spectacle out of praising a young
Speaker 9: man who serves thus first survived pediatric cancer, as if
Speaker 9: the President had something to do with that.
Speaker 2: And Nicole Wallace wasn't any better.
Speaker 10: I hope he has a long life as a law
Speaker 10: enforcement officer, but I help he never has to defend
Speaker 10: the United States Capital against Donald Trump supporters, and if
Speaker 10: he does, I hope he isn't one of the sex
Speaker 10: he loses his life to suicide.
Speaker 1: There were also various headlines labeling the speeches divisive, and
Speaker 1: our friends at the Guardian focused on the democrats resistance
Speaker 1: and disturbance in the chamber rather than the actual substance
Speaker 1: of the speech. Surprisingly, the people seem to like what
Speaker 1: Trump had to say, and a CBS News poll showed
Speaker 1: seventy six percent approved of the speech. Joining me now
Speaker 1: from New York is filmmaker Armi Horovitz. Army, we continue
Speaker 1: to see this chasm between the positions of the establishment
Speaker 1: media and the Democrats on one side, and everyday people
Speaker 1: on the other. This seems to me to just be
Speaker 1: another example has the media not worked out yet that
Speaker 1: they've been played like a fiddle.
Speaker 6: Now the Mesia media hasn't worked out anything. If they did,
Speaker 6: they wouldn't be seeing their numbers plummeting year after year
Speaker 6: after year. There are one hundred percent out of touch
Speaker 6: both with what people want and the fact that they're
Speaker 6: not serving it and therefore they are actually fitting their
Speaker 6: own destruction. And this example of what happened with trump'speech
Speaker 6: is another example of their failure to understand the disconnect
Speaker 6: from the people who were suppose be paying to watch
Speaker 6: their shows. Yes, look, the polls were significantly in favor
Speaker 6: of the President, You've broke them down based on Democratic,
Speaker 6: Republican independent. Essentially that setting five percent was all independent
Speaker 6: and all Republicans, right, they lost basically all the independents.
Speaker 6: That's where the game is politically and also in the media.
Speaker 6: And know they refused to acknowledge that they doubled down
Speaker 6: this lunacy. It is costing them viewers, it is costing
Speaker 6: them money. I mean, look, before the speech even happened,
Speaker 6: I was watching CNN and EPICENTBC as I am I
Speaker 6: generally do, I want to see the perspective there, and
Speaker 6: they began the attacks before the speech even began. They
Speaker 6: were attacking. They were delegitimizing all the accomplishments they're breaking down.
Speaker 6: For example, when it came to immigration, they're saying, and
Speaker 6: this immigration massive drop ninety in some cases ninety five
Speaker 6: percent dropped in illegal immigration is not due to the President.
Speaker 6: I was like, what world are you living? And they're
Speaker 6: disconnected from reality. And of course after the speech, it's like,
Speaker 6: there's the multi the idea of the multiverse, right where
Speaker 6: you have this idea of multiverse that we have an
Speaker 6: infinite amount of universe that exists at the same time
Speaker 6: and space, that everything that possibly could happen is happening
Speaker 6: concurrently in one of these multiverses. It's like two of
Speaker 6: these multiverses collided and now we're seeing we're in the
Speaker 6: same space and time, but we're seeing things exactly differently,
Speaker 6: almost opposite from each other, and the media can not
Speaker 6: figure it out. It's crazy.
Speaker 1: It is crazy, And you refer to that plummeting viewership.
Speaker 1: We've seen progressive hosts like Joid Reid, she's lost her show.
Speaker 2: Will they work.
Speaker 1: Out that the landscape has changed because at some point
Speaker 1: they need to be reasonable to survive.
Speaker 6: No, of course, not that they know that a rhetorical question.
Speaker 6: They're they have not worked it out. They will not
Speaker 6: work it out. They're in a death spiral. They're desperate
Speaker 6: to figure out how to get out of it, and
Speaker 6: they simply can't. And listening now, listen to those clips
Speaker 6: you played, Oh my god, Rachel Maddow saying it's disgusting,
Speaker 6: You're disgusting. Are you serious right now? I mean the
Speaker 6: fact that he's calling out First of all, look, Rita
Speaker 6: said that, yes, I can sometimes be cynical and heartless.
Speaker 6: She may be true. I don't know, ask my family,
Speaker 6: my friends, but The truth is is that, yeah, it
Speaker 6: was very heartwarming to see this kid with brain cancer,
Speaker 6: terminal brain cancer get this award. They couldn't even let
Speaker 6: the president have that. And then Nicole Wallace and I
Speaker 6: don't know what happened to her. Am I crazy? Wasn't
Speaker 6: she a Republican at some point? But she goes on
Speaker 6: and she's going back to the same tropes of January sixth. Nicole,
Speaker 6: No one cares. We've moved off of that. You are
Speaker 6: still going over January sixth. That's why MSNBC ratings have
Speaker 6: plummeted because of that move on. Find something new? God,
Speaker 6: what is going on?
Speaker 2: Oh look, we're all whiting and let's say if it happens.
Speaker 2: But also light law.
Speaker 1: This week, we saw that very tense exchange between Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: JdE Events and President Zelenski. Here's a really here's a
Speaker 1: short clip for anyone who's been living under a rock.
Speaker 4: Do you think that respectful lands to come to the
Speaker 4: Oval Office.
Speaker 11: Of the United States of America and attack the administration
Speaker 11: that is trying to trying to prevent the destruction of
Speaker 11: your country?
Speaker 12: A lot of questions, Let's start from the beginning. Sure,
Speaker 12: First of all, during the war. Everybody has problems, even you,
Speaker 12: but you have nice ocean and don't feel now, but
Speaker 12: you will feel.
Speaker 1: It in the fusion.
Speaker 6: Bless You don't know that.
Speaker 8: I'm blessed.
Speaker 12: You're un blessed. You're not here to work.
Speaker 6: Don't tell us what we're going to feel.
Speaker 7: We're trying to solve a problem.
Speaker 6: Don't tell us what we're going to feel.
Speaker 12: I'm not telling you because you're in no position to
Speaker 12: dictate that. Remember this, You're in.
Speaker 7: No position to dictate what we're going to feel.
Speaker 6: Now.
Speaker 1: This has elicited some pretty wild responses from the media.
Speaker 1: There was this spicy clash on CNN.
Speaker 3: President Zolensky was the instant gator in this conversation, absolutely
Speaker 3: andraduating that.
Speaker 13: Was a propaganda. He interjected, by what you say and
Speaker 13: how you really this entire situation, I'm ann alumni. You're
Speaker 13: offended that the United States wants I'm gonna States army.
Speaker 13: That's what I'm gonna alumnia, and millions of veterans around
Speaker 13: this country saw that today on our outrage of all background,
Speaker 13: because of the million, because there are like you who
Speaker 13: are from the standing with Putin instead of America.
Speaker 1: That Zelinsky shouldn't have to Why.
Speaker 2: Now those took a very different view.
Speaker 11: This isn't the first time that Lensky has seemed to
Speaker 11: kind of shake America down.
Speaker 6: I remember there was the deal with America's.
Speaker 2: Country.
Speaker 11: Well, when you come before the United States of America
Speaker 11: in the Oval Office, then you need whether there.
Speaker 2: Was so much to chorum.
Speaker 6: Well, they responded to him.
Speaker 11: Respectful, and you're going to find out the response to it.
Speaker 1: The other thing, and this longtime supporter of Ukraine shocked
Speaker 1: us all with the headline Zelenski must men breach with
Speaker 1: Trump or resign.
Speaker 2: Now, I mean, we.
Speaker 1: Get that this meeting didn't play out in the usual way,
Speaker 1: but it feels like the responses have been very divergent,
Speaker 1: very unpredictable. There was just so little middle ground. What's
Speaker 1: your view on how it landed in the US?
Speaker 6: I gotta be honest, it's really hard to wash that
Speaker 6: train wreck of a meeting. I mean, that really went
Speaker 6: off the rails, unquestionably about it. And by the way,
Speaker 6: no one is covered in glory in that Oval Office
Speaker 6: meeting to it just to work clear. I mean, look, okay,
Speaker 6: let's let's give us a context. Okay, it's so curious
Speaker 6: to me, right, why the left of the media are
Speaker 6: somehow become so anti Russian. Right, let's take a look
Speaker 6: at that for a second. Like they had become so
Speaker 6: like almost like proto Republican in the eighties, Like don't
Speaker 6: you do we not forget that when Obama was debating Romney,
Speaker 6: and Romney was going after Russia, right, and Obama was like, hey,
Speaker 6: the A's are calling they want their foreign policy back, right,
Speaker 6: and all of a sudden, like it was you know
Speaker 6: all then it was not the liberals would laugh our
Speaker 6: Republicans that are so strikingly anti Russian, and it's all
Speaker 6: kind of flip right, and now they're like pro Ukraine.
Speaker 6: They want they're like warhawks. Why is that right? Why
Speaker 6: have they done that? It's because they've looked at Trump wrongly,
Speaker 6: by the way, they look at Trump and say he's
Speaker 6: pro Putin. Therefore we have to hate Trump, and hating
Speaker 6: Trump means hating Russian. Right, That's really what the basis
Speaker 6: of all this pro Ukraine beating the war drums that
Speaker 6: we hear from the left and the media has really
Speaker 6: really picked up that water and carried it for the Democrats.
Speaker 6: And by the way, let's not forget they also are
Speaker 6: using Russia because they they they're so invested in that
Speaker 6: narrative that run that Trump is a catch paw for
Speaker 6: putin that they haven't given that up. They haven't get
Speaker 6: up the ghost on that argument because they invested so
Speaker 6: much of their time and their credibility in that false argument,
Speaker 6: they cannot let it go, right. And I think that's
Speaker 6: what the major problem you see with the media and
Speaker 6: the left when it comes to Russia tonight. Now, by
Speaker 6: the way, I don't disagree with them. I happen to
Speaker 6: think Russia is an enemy. I haven't changed my position
Speaker 6: on that. And by the way, it bothers me that
Speaker 6: some Republicans, not most, but some Republicans really have defended
Speaker 6: Russia and attacked Ukraine. I don't like that at all.
Speaker 6: I didn't like when the President calls Lynsky a dictator, right,
Speaker 6: But the same time, look Ylynsky. You know, obviously he
Speaker 6: walked into something and he looked he screwed up, no
Speaker 6: question about it. He was told beforehand, guys, Sam Zilinski,
Speaker 6: do not focus on security guarantees. You'll get them when
Speaker 6: you have an economic tie in together, which is the
Speaker 6: whole point of that meeting, and he disregarded that when
Speaker 6: right into it, and then JDVD jumped in from the
Speaker 6: top rope ward bare and look that's what precipitate this
Speaker 6: whole thing. Look, the whole thing was ugly. But yeah,
Speaker 6: the media, they have no credibility. Companies absolutely none, and.
Speaker 1: The maitream media they're still struggling even to come to
Speaker 1: terms with the Democrats lost last November.
Speaker 2: Now he is ESPN host Stephen A. Smith sparring with
Speaker 2: the ladies on the View.
Speaker 14: He's been going around with his cronies touting his so
Speaker 14: called lan landslide and blowout win.
Speaker 6: But he won the.
Speaker 14: Popular vote by one point five percent, one of the
Speaker 14: smallest ever, and he won the general election by less
Speaker 14: than fifty percent.
Speaker 6: So what kind of mandate is this really?
Speaker 11: Well, it is a mandate, and I'm going to explain why,
Speaker 11: and I don't mind the question, but let me be
Speaker 11: very clear. I'm no supporter of Trump. I'm a supporter
Speaker 11: of truth in the facts. And here's the facts. The
Speaker 11: man won every swing state, he increased in terms of
Speaker 11: his voter turnout in his favor. From the standpoint of blacks,
Speaker 11: Latinos and young voters. He increased his numbers in that
Speaker 11: regard from twenty twenty, eighty nine percent of the county
Speaker 11: shifted to the right. That's a mandate.
Speaker 1: So instead of learning from their mistakes, the revisionism has
Speaker 1: just started. As Stephen Asmith said, he's no fan of Trump,
Speaker 1: but at least he's willing to have the conversations that
Speaker 1: other in the media don't appear willing to have.
Speaker 6: Yees, stephen A. Look I stephen A and I had
Speaker 6: a Twitter war ones. You know, I didn't like him
Speaker 6: at that point, but I really have been turned around
Speaker 6: on him. Stephen A really is seeking the truth. I
Speaker 6: still don't know what his real politics are. I got
Speaker 6: to be honest. It's even more surprising because he comes
Speaker 6: from sports, and sports has become a repository of wokeness. Right,
Speaker 6: You watch ESPN, even watch Fox Sports sometimes, I hate
Speaker 6: to say it, and you watch uh Fox Fox, I'm sorry.
Speaker 6: You watch sports talk talk shows and talk radio, and
Speaker 6: there's a lot of like progressive wokeness there. I mean,
Speaker 6: let's not forget that. You're watching you know, football, the
Speaker 6: real football, guys, American football, and it says end racism
Speaker 6: in the end zone. Right, I'm like Okay, yeah, okay,
Speaker 6: they said they wrote racism and all about love and
Speaker 6: the helmets, and therefore we're all good. It's all love
Speaker 6: and racism is over because they wrote it down there.
Speaker 6: So it's even particularly surprising that he can be such
Speaker 6: a truth sayer when he's coming from sports. He was
Speaker 6: kind of, you know, gone so left. So it's impressive.
Speaker 6: But no, the media continue. It's they have learned no
Speaker 6: lessons from this election. V Row none. It's unbelievable to
Speaker 6: me they continue to go down this road. They lost
Speaker 6: this this, this, this, uh, this election in no small
Speaker 6: part because the media had no credibility to the American
Speaker 6: electorate that every time they said democracy is going to end,
Speaker 6: no one believed it. They didn't like it. They pushed back,
Speaker 6: and that's why Trump is president. So good for Steve
Speaker 6: Nay Smith to go on the view and to speak
Speaker 6: truth to power. Nothing they have any power, They have
Speaker 6: no power. No one watches them.
Speaker 2: But speaking of the truth.
Speaker 1: And lastly, Jeff Bezos recently announced an overhaul to the
Speaker 1: Washington Post opinion page, notably that the opinion pages will
Speaker 1: soon be writing every day in support and defense of
Speaker 1: two pillars, personal liberties and free markers will cover other
Speaker 1: topics too, of course, but viewpoints opposing those pillars will be.
Speaker 2: Left to be published by others.
Speaker 1: Now, there's obviously been backlash Army, and Bezos has similarly
Speaker 1: clapped back at his critics, saying that there was nothing
Speaker 1: fascist about free markets.
Speaker 2: I mean, ami, I think fascist.
Speaker 1: Is one of the great misused words of the modern day.
Speaker 2: But more to.
Speaker 1: The point, the overhaul actually sounds pretty sensible to me,
Speaker 1: and I'm pretty sure if Bezos is doing it, it's
Speaker 1: because it's a lucrative one.
Speaker 2: I don't think the winging of the left is du joure.
Speaker 6: Now, first of all, fascism has become hollowed out and meaningless,
Speaker 6: because when everything is fascist, nothing is fascist, just like racism,
Speaker 6: when everything is racist, nothing is racist. Two of the
Speaker 6: great misgivings I have had over language is the denuding
Speaker 6: of those two particularly powerful words that now mean nothing.
Speaker 6: They've been hollowed out. But look, one of the I
Speaker 6: have to be honest, something that's so delicious about Trump
Speaker 6: bringing a winning is watching our tech overlords kiss the
Speaker 6: rings of President Trump. And you saw Mark Zuckerberg with
Speaker 6: Facebook do an absolute bad face. Now you're seeing Jeff
Speaker 6: Bezos do the same thing. I think it's delicious. I
Speaker 6: think it's wonderful. Love to see it. I'm here for it. Yeah.
Speaker 6: The Washington Post. Look, this is the paper of record, right,
Speaker 6: the Washington Post, one that broke the Watergate scandal. Oh
Speaker 6: how far the mighty They've become. Gross, they become again,
Speaker 6: they become the holy grail of wokeness along with the
Speaker 6: New York Times. But they've failed more than New York Times.
Speaker 6: New York Times at least has be come to put
Speaker 6: They've been able to put together a business model which
Speaker 6: has worked.
Speaker 3: Uh.
Speaker 6: The Washington Post has not been able to do that.
Speaker 6: The Washington Post has seen a viewership creater, and they've
Speaker 6: had no ability whatsoever to get them back. So I
Speaker 6: think I think what you see there is Baso seeing
Speaker 6: two things. One is, don't get on the bad side
Speaker 6: of Trump A and B. He sees this asset that
Speaker 6: he bought losing value every single day, and he's desperate
Speaker 6: to find something that will turn around. And now thankfully
Speaker 6: he's saying we're now going to push two issues, uh,
Speaker 6: personal freedom and the free markets. Thank god, decades too late,
Speaker 6: but I'll take it, and I betly I've never thought
Speaker 6: that newspapers should actually take positions on endorsing presidents. I
Speaker 6: always thought it didn't make sense. It was kind of icky,
Speaker 6: and I'm glad they decide not to endorse anybody, and
Speaker 6: I thought it's a right move and maybe that will
Speaker 6: see them. I doubt it, but who.
Speaker 1: The hell knows anyway, no doubt we will see Army Horovitz.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much for your time, and up next,
Speaker 1: the left media's love affair with the Teals continues. Jared
Speaker 1: Henderson joins me to break down the latest.
Speaker 2: 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. Jared,
Speaker 1: you've noticed this week that the left wing media in
Speaker 1: Australia seems to be giving the Teals a bit of
Speaker 1: a free run. Here's a network tends the project doing
Speaker 1: their best last Sunday.
Speaker 15: Do you think that there is this growing on that
Speaker 15: like a growing appetite towards independence?
Speaker 11: Then and then are you comfortable and being the kind
Speaker 11: of face of that new wave.
Speaker 6: It's going to be a big challenge, is it a
Speaker 6: this selection?
Speaker 16: But it's also a challenge for them as well, like
Speaker 16: the fact that we call them the Teals.
Speaker 2: It's not what they call themselves.
Speaker 3: It's just because we're like, I can't deal with all
Speaker 3: these independent people.
Speaker 6: Let's make up a term for them, Like they.
Speaker 15: Don't actually necessarily sit down together, come at the same policies, don't.
Speaker 6: We just can't deal with all these different independence can we, Jared?
Speaker 2: We can't just call them the Teals? What's your reaction?
Speaker 16: Well, that's Rooke Castle at the end there. They call
Speaker 16: themselves the Teals. They pose together in photographs, they tend
Speaker 16: to operate together. They were essentially got into parliament because
Speaker 16: they were funded by the multi billionaire Simon Holmes a court.
Speaker 16: They pretty well act together. They're all in parliament because
Speaker 16: they got preferences from the Labor Party and all the Greens,
Speaker 16: and that's if their return at the next election, that'll
Speaker 16: be the same again. So when you look at it,
Speaker 16: they sound like a party, they look like a party.
Speaker 16: But according to Craig, then a couple of people. So
Speaker 16: what you had there in these instances is essentially the
Speaker 16: ABC or the Project. In this instance Craig grew Castle's
Speaker 16: on the ABC but supporting a Till candidate in a
Speaker 16: seat in Queensland in McPherson and a seat in Victoria
Speaker 16: in one And what happened on the project was that
Speaker 16: the sitting Liberal or National Liberal Party member in Queensland
Speaker 16: and the Liberal Party member of Victoria weren't even mentioned,
Speaker 16: or they were vaguely mentioned, but they weren't interviewed. It
Speaker 16: was like they weren't there. It was like these new
Speaker 16: teals were going to suddenly come in and win seats
Speaker 16: in Parliament just sort of by themselves and without any
Speaker 16: kind of opposition. But the idea that they're not a party,
Speaker 16: well really they are a party.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think they probably are for quacks like one right.
Speaker 1: And then obviously the ABC senior reporter Laura Tingle, she
Speaker 1: did a story on seven point thirty about Australia's involvement
Speaker 1: in Ukraine and guests who she interviewed for their opinion.
Speaker 17: It's one thing for the Europeans to stand up for Ukraine,
Speaker 17: but another for Australia, particularly given the past caution about
Speaker 17: taking a different position to President Trump on almost anything.
Speaker 17: And while the government's language may reverberate in Washington, at home,
Speaker 17: opinion polls pointing to a likely minority government suggest views
Speaker 17: on the cross bench may need to be taken into consideration.
Speaker 17: The MP for Goldstein, Zoe Daniel, says it is time
Speaker 17: for some plane talking with our ally.
Speaker 15: I don't think it's sustainable to just hope that this
Speaker 15: situation will go away and we can walk on eggshells
Speaker 15: around Donald Trump for the next four years in the
Speaker 15: hope that he find impose tariffs on our key exports
Speaker 15: because we defy him in some way.
Speaker 2: Now, Jared, everyone is entitled to an opinion.
Speaker 1: But Tingle asking her former ABC colleague Zoe Daniel and
Speaker 1: Tia lamp what do you make of that?
Speaker 16: Well, a coincidence obviously. You'll note that Zoe Daniel gets
Speaker 16: a lot of coverage on ABC television and Radio National
Speaker 16: in particular seven point thirty here. And what's happening really
Speaker 16: is that ABC people like Laura Tingle and their producers
Speaker 16: are going to their former colleague to get an opinion. Now,
Speaker 16: on my last count, there's around fourteen independent on the
Speaker 16: cross bench. That's a lot of people, but Zoe Daniels
Speaker 16: one of fourteen. But you rarely see the others. You
Speaker 16: only really see the teals who are in Parliament. You
Speaker 16: don't see the others, But what happens when parliament resumes,
Speaker 16: As we know, everyone gets one vote, but Zoe Daniels
Speaker 16: certainly getting a special treatment on the ABC. And the
Speaker 16: other point to bear in mind is she's on a
Speaker 16: narrow margin and Gold scene she won on the back
Speaker 16: of Labour and Green's preferences. Her margins around three percent.
Speaker 16: It's not necessarily clear that she'll be back in parliament.
Speaker 16: She may well win. I don't know, she may not win,
Speaker 16: but she's certainly getting a lot of free kicks in
Speaker 16: front of an open goal from her former ABC colleagues.
Speaker 16: Because it's never explained why out of the fourteen you
Speaker 16: pick Zoe Daniel. I don't know why that's the case.
Speaker 16: Or Electraspender gets a very good run as well, but
Speaker 16: it's not clear why the others aren't mentioned. Because if
Speaker 16: an incoming government, Labor or the Coalition has to form
Speaker 16: a majority government out of the minority people or preside
Speaker 16: over a minority government, they're as I said before, Zoey
Speaker 16: Daniel's got one vote and everyone else has got one
Speaker 16: voters there and we don't even know how many people
Speaker 16: are going to be there. But these are really soft
Speaker 16: interviews that where people like Zoey Daniels are never challenged
Speaker 16: by their former ABC Colleagues's never challenged at all.
Speaker 1: And you know, if they are going to form part
Speaker 1: of any mine already government, what they actually think is
Speaker 1: really important.
Speaker 2: So you think that though some of those questions would
Speaker 2: be a bit tougher.
Speaker 1: And now, finally, Jared, you noticed yet another example, but
Speaker 1: this time the ABC pedaling a bit more climate fearmongering.
Speaker 1: In case we haven't had enough this time, ABC Radio
Speaker 1: National Breakfast host Sally Sarah here is how she ended
Speaker 1: her interview with the Federal Minister for Emergency Management.
Speaker 15: That's Jenny McAllister there, the Federal Emergency Management Minister, and
Speaker 15: of course previously was in the climate change portfolio.
Speaker 2: Now very much on the front line. I really can't
Speaker 2: help themselves, can they, Jered?
Speaker 16: Well, the front line is it's like World War One,
Speaker 16: and you know, on the front line. But as we know,
Speaker 16: in that area of southern Queensland and northern New South
Speaker 16: Wales there have been cyclones and this kind of adverse
Speaker 16: weather at least three times in the last sixty years,
Speaker 16: so it's not really a front line. It's not like
Speaker 16: this because if it was, if it's a front line tomorrow.
Speaker 16: What was it in nineteen fifty four. I mean, no
Speaker 16: one even thought about it in this way. I mean,
Speaker 16: what we know is that there's no evidence as far
Speaker 16: as I'm aware, that connects any cyclone with climate change.
Speaker 16: So what's happening is is just sort of more emergency thinking,
Speaker 16: panic hyperbole, like someone a minister in the Albanezi government
Speaker 16: heading off to the front line. Well, people on the
Speaker 16: front line used to fire weapons. I mean that Minister
Speaker 16: Jenny McAllister is going there to try and help out,
Speaker 16: but I mean it's hardly a front line. But when
Speaker 16: you sort of build all these up, there's a climate
Speaker 16: change catastrophe, there's a front liner which it must be fought,
Speaker 16: provided to forget the other front lines, and which it
Speaker 16: was never fought when it happened once before. So again
Speaker 16: it's sort of this very much ABC line, And it's
Speaker 16: very hard to find anyone on the whole of the
Speaker 16: taxpayer funded public broadcaster who would disagree with the kind
Speaker 16: of position that Salisara is putting. It's sort of part
Speaker 16: of a quasi religious, secular religious belief in the ABC
Speaker 16: which is never challenged, And so when people say, oh,
Speaker 16: I'm off to the front line. People assume, well there
Speaker 16: is a front line, but there isn't one.
Speaker 2: So there you go.
Speaker 1: No, and you think, you know, when we're right in
Speaker 1: the middle of these things, that we would be a
Speaker 1: bit more practical about them.
Speaker 2: Grett, thank you so much for your insights this evening.
Speaker 1: Now that's all we have time for tonight's show up
Speaker 1: next is Newsnight.