Speaker 1: Hello, and welcome back to the Maths Funny Podcast with
Speaker 1: me Joshua Fox. Before we jump straight into today's big
Speaker 1: six foot seven to be exact subject, I just want
Speaker 1: to say thank you for all the love on the
Speaker 1: first episode of my investigation. I started this podcast seven
Speaker 1: weeks ago now with no objective other than to see, hey,
Speaker 1: am I going to enjoy the process of making a podcast,
Speaker 1: and it's actually been so much fun and like most
Speaker 1: things that discover that I enjoy in life, I have
Speaker 1: quickly become fixated on this and have since all had
Speaker 1: it to consume every fiber of my being. For a
Speaker 1: little bit more background context as well, just to be
Speaker 1: fully honest with you, because I have seen some comments
Speaker 1: being like, why is he doing a podcast now? Why
Speaker 1: is he trying to make himself a thing? And I'm
Speaker 1: not trying to make myself a thing in any way.
Speaker 1: I'm just doing something I enjoy. And what you guys
Speaker 1: probably don't realize is, in all my years of having
Speaker 1: this Maths Funny page, it's never it's still not my
Speaker 1: source of income. Like I still have a day job,
Speaker 1: but all my other previous day jobs have been for
Speaker 1: large media organizations like publications, radio stations, whatever. And because
Speaker 1: I've had those jobs, I've also been kind of somewhat
Speaker 1: restricted in what I can and can't say. As all
Speaker 1: these big organizations I've previously worked for, I kind of
Speaker 1: intertwined with Channel nine commercially, and basically every media company
Speaker 1: I've ever worked for is kind of competing for Nine's
Speaker 1: multi million dollar ad spends. So even though bosses had
Speaker 1: previously been like, yeah, do you ma funny thing that's fun,
Speaker 1: because you know, they like the intel I can provide,
Speaker 1: which can be used for content in whatever capacity in
Speaker 1: my job is, I've also had this little voice in
Speaker 1: the back of my head like, Okay, you can't rock
Speaker 1: the boat too much, Josh. So that's why I suppose
Speaker 1: I've never done a podcast. Also, I've just never wanted
Speaker 1: to until now, and I think that's also because of
Speaker 1: my point in my life where I feel a bit
Speaker 1: more confident and comfortable using my own voice, and as
Speaker 1: much fun as I'm having with the podcast and you know,
Speaker 1: having a laugh there, I also feel passionate about what
Speaker 1: I'm doing with the series, about calling for changes to happen,
Speaker 1: because this show will not survive if things do not
Speaker 1: change anyway, and moving on now to more exciting things,
Speaker 1: because that, in all honesty bores me having to talk
Speaker 1: about that and defend my career. But I just wanted
Speaker 1: to give you a bit more context and be fully
Speaker 1: transparent with you, because the one thing I don't ever
Speaker 1: wish to do on this podcast is lie. And speaking
Speaker 1: of lying, Dave and Jamie and the baby they're having
Speaker 1: a love of you guys noticed last week Dave and
Speaker 1: Jamie were on the cover of Woman's Day. They had
Speaker 1: a picture of them kissing and the headline read Dave
Speaker 1: and Jamie Exclusive, We're having a baby. And I have
Speaker 1: had so many messages since then saying, Josh, is it true?
Speaker 1: Tell me it's true, and I'm afraid to say it's
Speaker 1: not true. Before even in opening up the magazine to
Speaker 1: read the interview and find the context of that, I
Speaker 1: knew it was completely fake. And you know how because
Speaker 1: I used to work at a magazine like this and
Speaker 1: they do it every single year. What basically happens is
Speaker 1: the editors will sit around on a Monday and go, Okay,
Speaker 1: who are people loving and who were people buy a
Speaker 1: magazine to read about? And the answer to that this
Speaker 1: year is Dave and Jamie, and then they'll all go, Okay,
Speaker 1: how can we move their story along to such a
Speaker 1: new extreme that any fan will be compelled to buy
Speaker 1: the magazine when they see it on the shelf and
Speaker 1: fucking woollies or coals, which then led them to the
Speaker 1: pregnancy headline. And now, if you're wondering, well, how the
Speaker 1: fuck can they get away with doing a headline like
Speaker 1: that when no one's having a baby, It's quite funny
Speaker 1: because they do the same method every year. They'll basically,
Speaker 1: you know, schedule an interview via Channel nine with you know,
Speaker 1: both of them together or one of them, and during
Speaker 1: the interview, the journalists will be like, oh my god,
Speaker 1: you guys are such a hot copy, like you'd have
Speaker 1: the cutest kids one day? Do you reckon you'll have
Speaker 1: babies one day? And then you know, one of the
Speaker 1: people will respond like, oh my god, yeah, i'd love
Speaker 1: kids full stop, and then that single quote would then
Speaker 1: lead to a headline like we're having a baby, when no,
Speaker 1: they're not. And the only reason they were talking about
Speaker 1: babies is because you brought it up, which is exactly
Speaker 1: what happened here. Because if anyone actually bought Woman's Day
Speaker 1: last week, and read the full interview. In it, you
Speaker 1: will see Jamie was asked, hey, do you want kids
Speaker 1: one day? And she's quoted then respect saying yeah, I
Speaker 1: definitely want kids. Sam me up for that minivan full stop.
Speaker 1: That was it. So, no, she's not pregnant. They're not
Speaker 1: having a baby now as suggested. Could they one day
Speaker 1: have a baby in the future potentially? Are they having
Speaker 1: one now? No? And you know it's funny if you
Speaker 1: go through the archives of like Australian magazines over the
Speaker 1: last few years, it's the same every season. Like even
Speaker 1: going back to a NW magazine in February twenty nineteen,
Speaker 1: which have just pulled out. On the cover, we've got
Speaker 1: Tracy Jewell and Dean Wells and there stood hugging and
Speaker 1: the headline reads We're having a baby. Then you skim
Speaker 1: through the chat and here's the quote from Tracy, who
Speaker 1: already had a daughter before doing math. She said, yeah,
Speaker 1: I loved being pregnant the first time and I can't
Speaker 1: wait to experience it again. I definitely do want another
Speaker 1: child one day, full stop. And you know the journalist
Speaker 1: Tracy was speaking to back then who got those quotes
Speaker 1: from her me, don't don't dune. That was my first
Speaker 1: year in Australia when I was working at a magazin
Speaker 1: for six months as a backpacker, and I was basically
Speaker 1: told before doing that interview via Channel nine, hey, let's
Speaker 1: try to get like a baby angle, like a pregnancy one.
Speaker 1: So ask her about kids, ask her if she liked
Speaker 1: being pregnant, and you know, we'll just fucking fudge something together.
Speaker 1: And that's what was done. And I only was part
Speaker 1: of that for that one season in twenty nineteen, but
Speaker 1: like it's the same every year in the matter who's
Speaker 1: working there. Even last year there was one in New
Speaker 1: Idea with Lucinda Light and the headline was like Lucinder's
Speaker 1: baby announcement. Then you click here and the announcement is
Speaker 1: her mate just had a kid and she met the baby. Anyway,
Speaker 1: I could literally talk for hours about this stuff and
Speaker 1: how magazines and the media and all that work, but
Speaker 1: I won't because there's more Dave stuff to unpack. But
Speaker 1: late last year I did actually release a book called
Speaker 1: What You Into, Sex, Sadness and Celebrity Scandals, which was
Speaker 1: mostly about mental health and gay culture. Following the breakdown
Speaker 1: of my own big gay marriage but there's actually so
Speaker 1: much in there about my career in media in Australia
Speaker 1: and the UK, with kind of a lot of stories
Speaker 1: about that baby one and how things at the work.
Speaker 1: Sorry for the shameless plug there, but hey, I have
Speaker 1: got bills to pay. But I do actually think some
Speaker 1: of you may enjoy reading that. Sticking with the subject
Speaker 1: of questionable articles though, this morning, this one doing the
Speaker 1: rounds titled Dave Exposed with a subhead that goes enough
Speaker 1: of this nice guy narrative. Then when you read through
Speaker 1: the article, they've basically spoken to an unnamed friend of
Speaker 1: Dave's ex fiance because he was engaged a year or
Speaker 1: two before doing maths, and that unnamed friend claims that
Speaker 1: after Dave and his ex ended their engagement, he applied
Speaker 1: to be on f Boy Island. And they kind of
Speaker 1: suggest this as if it's this huge negative and Dave
Speaker 1: exposed the real Dave enough of this nice guy narrative,
Speaker 1: And I think it's personally a bit of a stretch
Speaker 1: suggesting because like within a few months of his relationship
Speaker 1: and that he wanted to do a show, is you know,
Speaker 1: this big telling sign of his character? But to me,
Speaker 1: it's like, fuck, how many of us have gone through
Speaker 1: breakups and done something to an extreme just trying to
Speaker 1: move on. The article then moves on to say that
Speaker 1: although Dave didn't get onto F Boy Island, production company
Speaker 1: Animal Shine Australia and I quote saw something in him
Speaker 1: and put him un married at first site instead. And
Speaker 1: now the funny thing here is F Boy Island is
Speaker 1: actually produced by Warner Brothers for Binge, whereas married at
Speaker 1: first sit it's produced by Animal Shine for nine. An
Speaker 1: Animal have some kind of partnership with Stan which Nine own.
Speaker 1: So I don't understand how they've come to the conclusion
Speaker 1: that him applying for F Boy Island has someone led
Speaker 1: to him being put on married at first sight. It'd
Speaker 1: be like me applying for a job in woolfs but
Speaker 1: them saying to me, actually, Josh, we're gonna put you
Speaker 1: in colds instead. It makes no sense. This isn't me
Speaker 1: defending Dave necessarily either. It's more just me putting some
Speaker 1: context out there around the media and how stuff works.
Speaker 1: Because something else that happens in the media world is
Speaker 1: the second is like a sniff of a plot twist
Speaker 1: or sign of troubles. Journalists will jump on that to
Speaker 1: capitalize from it, Like last night we saw Dave portrayed
Speaker 1: slightly differently to usual, as he didn't say he loved
Speaker 1: Jamie back, and some fans are a bit like, oh,
Speaker 1: that was a bit weird. That was a bit awkward.
Speaker 1: And now suddenly the next day these articles like tearing
Speaker 1: him down and saying Dave exposed and trying to say
Speaker 1: he's a fraud, he's a fake or whatever. And then
Speaker 1: in another magazine today there's another story that's suggesting Davis
Speaker 1: now with Veronica and Jamie's heartbroken, and that whole story
Speaker 1: comes off the fact they got paired together for this
Speaker 1: couple swap tasks this week. But then the magazine could
Speaker 1: also have suggested, hey, he's Jamie now with Adrian because
Speaker 1: they were paired together, or is the phena we're Paul
Speaker 1: because they were paired together, like everyone had to swap partners.
Speaker 1: But New Idea only chose to run a thing on
Speaker 1: Dave and Veronica. And you know why that is they
Speaker 1: obtained one single pap shot of Dave and Veronica film
Speaker 1: in this week's episodes where they were laughing on the
Speaker 1: street together. So they've took that single picture, they've put
Speaker 1: it on the cover and then they've fudged some like
Speaker 1: source quotes to speculate does this mean you know, Dave
Speaker 1: leaves Jamie for Veronica, Jamie's heartbroke and all this, and like, no,
Speaker 1: it doesn't. It just means you wanted a story. Again.
Speaker 1: I could talk for hours and hours and hours about
Speaker 1: this stuff, but I will not bore you. I suppose
Speaker 1: the point of this episode was to say, no, there's
Speaker 1: no baby, Dave's not now with Veronica. And when you
Speaker 1: do see headlines or articles that you're a bit so like, oh,
Speaker 1: that's a bit weird, that's a bit like out of
Speaker 1: the blue. Always try to think of the bigger picture
Speaker 1: and question them when you read it. Question why is
Speaker 1: this article out now? Is this playing into something bigger?
Speaker 1: And when you read through it, don't read through it
Speaker 1: blindly and just believe it. Question it again and try
Speaker 1: to find the facts or is it all speculation and
Speaker 1: there's no facts? Like if you read that new Idea
Speaker 1: on today, you realize the whole basis of that story
Speaker 1: which is on their cover, is just off the back
Speaker 1: of this one single picture of two people stood next
Speaker 1: to each other laughing on the street. All that being said, though,
Speaker 1: this week, Dave could turn out to be a massive
Speaker 1: dickhead for all I know. I've been so balls deep
Speaker 1: in my investigation that my finger is off the pulse
Speaker 1: little little bit. But for now I'm still team Dave,
Speaker 1: just from what we've all seen play out. Have a
Speaker 1: lovely day, guys,