Speaker 1: Vince is the Media Show.
Speaker 2: Hello and welcome to the Media Show. I'm Caroline Derusso.
Speaker 1: Coming up on the show tonight.
Speaker 2: And the ABC's new managing director starts in the job
Speaker 2: on Monday.
Speaker 1: Is he going to wrestle the Beast? Or can we
Speaker 1: expect more of the same?
Speaker 2: CNN, Well, it drops its bundle this week with example
Speaker 2: after example of everyone and everything being racist, fascists and transphobic.
Speaker 2: And the ABC's Four Corners does a hit piece on
Speaker 2: the Australian War Memorial and as per usual, being a
Speaker 2: bit light on for alternative perspectives. But first, the Australian
Speaker 2: Energy Regulator has released a draft decision to lift price
Speaker 2: caps for hundreds of thousands of customers on energy company's.
Speaker 1: Default offers from July one.
Speaker 2: And what was the rationale from The Sydney Morning Herald
Speaker 2: in its reporting, Well, a year of low wind and rain,
Speaker 2: sudden cold, generator breakdowns and elevator fossil fuel costs pushed
Speaker 2: up wholesale prices. Now cap rises could increase household power
Speaker 2: bills by up to two hundred dollars a year, and
Speaker 2: the SMH did acknowledge that this was a problem for
Speaker 2: Anthony Albanezi and that prices had risen despite assurances from
Speaker 2: Albo and Co prior to the last election. Anyway, it
Speaker 2: went on to refer to comments by the Energy Minister
Speaker 2: which went totally unchallenged. It said Bowen said more renewables
Speaker 2: were needed to cut prices and attacked the Opposition for
Speaker 2: its energy policy, which includes building nuclear power plants across
Speaker 2: the country and limiting the rollout of renewable energy. Here
Speaker 2: is what Bowen had to say in his presser.
Speaker 3: One of the reasons for this decision today is spikes
Speaker 3: caused by coal fire power stations breaking down. Not a
Speaker 3: day in the last two years have we had a
Speaker 3: call fire POWERstation not breakdown somewhere in Australia. Not talking
Speaker 3: about plan maintenance. I'm talking about unexpected breakdowns which sends
Speaker 3: the energy prices spike.
Speaker 2: Anyway, back to the SMH and it went on to
Speaker 2: say that Dutton has criticized the government's eggs in one
Speaker 2: basket renewables policy and set a balanced energy mix including
Speaker 2: gas and nuclear was needed. He has claimed that the
Speaker 2: opposition's nuclear policy would cut energy bills by forty four
Speaker 2: percent by twenty fifty and that experts, including the CSIRO
Speaker 2: have rejected that claim, stating that a grid dominated by
Speaker 2: renewables and backed by massive expansion in transmission lines, pumped
Speaker 2: hydro and batteries would be significantly cheaper. But SMH readers
Speaker 2: would know that the reasoning colon gass are so expensive
Speaker 2: is because of labour's crippling net zero laws. A mistruth
Speaker 2: repeated that renewables are bringing down power prices. Of course
Speaker 2: they're quick to debunk Dutton, but offer no scrutiny of
Speaker 2: the Energy Minister.
Speaker 1: Interesting.
Speaker 2: The piece was published at nine oh six am yesterday,
Speaker 2: but was heavily updated.
Speaker 1: At six twenty two pm last night.
Speaker 2: Thankfully, Simon Benson at The Australian pulled the hend and
Speaker 2: break up on the Energy Minister, noting that Bowen's default
Speaker 2: position on prices is to blame the industry rather than
Speaker 2: acknowledge the pressure's labor policy has injected into the market,
Speaker 2: and signs off by stating that the Albanesi government has
Speaker 2: had three years to fix this problem. Subsidizing power bills
Speaker 2: is not the long term answer. Well, that sounds pretty logical,
Speaker 2: But here is Bowen's solution, again unchallenged by the SMH
Speaker 2: and other soft left media.
Speaker 3: I think these figures show an important opportunity to remind
Speaker 3: Australians that you can do better and shop around for
Speaker 3: a better deal. Now we've made it easier and the
Speaker 3: Albanezi government to switch energy providers. And there are two
Speaker 3: websites which are very.
Speaker 2: Useful joining me now on the Panelisky News contributor Louise
Speaker 2: Roberts and Radio to Double C hosts Steven China Tempo Louise. Look,
Speaker 2: we can all see that power prices are going up.
Speaker 2: It's happening before our very eyes, and yet no substantive
Speaker 2: criticism of the minister. How can that sort of balance
Speaker 2: not be present given the significance of this particular energy issue.
Speaker 4: Well, the federal government and Chris Bowen's failure to deliver
Speaker 4: on their promise of a two hundred and seventy five
Speaker 4: dollars cut to our power bills is shameful to all
Speaker 4: Australians and I would include readers of the SMH in
Speaker 4: that so. Feasibly, they should expect their publication of choice
Speaker 4: to challenge the government on this, rather than use it
Speaker 4: as an opportunity to pump out propaganda about how coal
Speaker 4: fired power is to blame for these sky high power prices.
Speaker 4: It just beggars belief that they haven't actually gone in
Speaker 4: and actually addressed the key issue, which is why is
Speaker 4: our power so expensive? And what's the government doing about
Speaker 4: it when they claim to have fixed it, when of
Speaker 4: course clearly they haven't. You think you're reading it's some
Speaker 4: sort of alternative publication rather than a mainstream newspaper.
Speaker 2: And Steve, we just need to shop around. That's it,
Speaker 2: nothing more. I find that obviously extraordinary from the Energy minister.
Speaker 2: But we know that renewable energy isn't cheaper, and we
Speaker 2: know that manufacturing nations across.
Speaker 1: The world rely on nuclear.
Speaker 2: How is that context, which quite frankly is pretty important.
Speaker 1: It's always missed or diminished.
Speaker 5: Well, there's a couple of points here.
Speaker 6: I mean, the first thing is shop around for what
Speaker 6: for a bunch of energy providers who have all seen
Speaker 6: their cost go up, So no matter where you go,
Speaker 6: your energy prices are going up. And how's that two
Speaker 6: hundred and seventy five dollars discount going.
Speaker 5: By the way. But the reality is here that I
Speaker 5: think a lot of media.
Speaker 6: Outlets are afraid to challenge the CSIRO who have got
Speaker 6: their figures wrong and anybody who digs a little bit
Speaker 6: deeper into how they've come up with their numbers, you
Speaker 6: can actually see the flaw in their modeling. But I think,
Speaker 6: you know, I've always maintained a lot of journalists are
Speaker 6: lazy and they'll just use whatever drops in their lap,
Speaker 6: and if the CSIRO comes out and says the sky
Speaker 6: is green, then that's what they'll run with. But if
Speaker 6: you dig a little bit deeper and find out why
Speaker 6: the sky is green, you see that the modeling doesn't
Speaker 6: actually take into account the full cost of the renewables
Speaker 6: roll out, particularly the rewiring of Australia, and it doesn't
Speaker 6: also allow for the longevity of nuclear power plants. But
Speaker 6: the thing that Chris Bowen misses here is the reason
Speaker 6: that col fight power stations are breaking down is because
Speaker 6: there's no certainty for the operators to actually maintain them
Speaker 6: because they don't know when they're going to be switched off.
Speaker 2: Onto our next topic, and the Trump arrangement syndrome afflicted
Speaker 2: lefties while they've joined ALBO to have asok about the
Speaker 2: USA's position on tariffs, carrying on like jilted lovers, how
Speaker 2: can they not care about us anymore? Trump is such
Speaker 2: a big meaning now. Matthew Not from the SMH went
Speaker 2: with the special friendship is over.
Speaker 1: Trump doesn't care about Australia.
Speaker 2: Also at the SMH, Peter Hartch's piece was titled Trump
Speaker 2: has done us a favor by showing us where we
Speaker 2: stand during peacetime. Nikki Hutley the Guardian proffered Trump's senseless
Speaker 2: tariffs will extend the economic malaise felt by so many
Speaker 2: in Australia and around the world. According to the Guardian,
Speaker 2: this is a painful global lesson into why we should
Speaker 2: listen to rather than denigrate the experts. I think there's
Speaker 2: a few people who would be.
Speaker 1: To differ anyway. And Bernard Keane or he got the
Speaker 1: strops on.
Speaker 2: As well, because albow, he must ignore the boot lickors,
Speaker 2: get off his knees and punch back at Trump. Meanwhile, thankfully,
Speaker 2: others took a more practical approach, pointing out that while
Speaker 2: some of these should be a wake up call for
Speaker 2: the government, the correct response is to get serious about
Speaker 2: improving the Australian economy, diversifying our trade, and there is
Speaker 2: no point in bashing the Yanks. For example, Robert Godlibson,
Speaker 2: as per usual, arrived with some common sense. The US
Speaker 2: snubs Australia, but there are ways. Here's how we can offset.
Speaker 1: Trump's tariffs, Steve.
Speaker 2: Look, Granted, it's a pretty unfriendly thing for an ally
Speaker 2: to do, but is the media Are they covering for
Speaker 2: a lackluster government performance here?
Speaker 5: Look, to a certain extent they are.
Speaker 6: But look, I don't buy into the all in with
Speaker 6: Trump mentality of some people on the right. I mean,
Speaker 6: Trump can be wrong, and with these tariffs he is wrong,
Speaker 6: not only from a perspective of his relationship with Australia
Speaker 6: and his other partners, but it's not good for the
Speaker 6: American economy either. I don't necessarily think he understands what
Speaker 6: these tariffs do, because he made the comment the other
Speaker 6: day that these tariffs are going to raise so much
Speaker 6: money that he won't know what to spend it on. Well,
Speaker 6: if they work, they won't raise a single dollar. That's
Speaker 6: how tariffs work. But the reality is here that yeah,
Speaker 6: I mean the media in this country, all certain sections
Speaker 6: of the media have been running cover for the government
Speaker 6: for the whole three years they've been in and we
Speaker 6: can't despite the fact that I think America has done
Speaker 6: the wrong thing by Australia in this we can't discount
Speaker 6: the inability of the Australian government to maintain our most
Speaker 6: important partnership. Now, you can blame Trump all you like,
Speaker 6: but we can't even get a phone call with the
Speaker 6: bloke because our government's on the nose. Why because we've
Speaker 6: got Australia's second worst prime minister in Washington as our ambassador,
Speaker 6: Australia's worst ever prime minister in the lodge who can't
Speaker 6: even get a phone call with the president, and Australia's
Speaker 6: third worst ever prime minister and Malcolm Turnbull sniping from
Speaker 6: the sideline. So it put all that together, why would
Speaker 6: the American administration want to talk to us? So once
Speaker 6: the adults get back into power, I think we can
Speaker 6: probably smooth this over. But you're not going to hear
Speaker 6: that from certain media outlets.
Speaker 1: Don't hold back, Steve and Louise.
Speaker 2: Look, does our domestic media take too narrow of you
Speaker 2: on these sorts of things?
Speaker 4: Look, I think they do. I mean to Stephen's point
Speaker 4: as well, that you know they have to look at
Speaker 4: this globally and actually work out what the strategy is
Speaker 4: for dealing with the fact that we now have these
Speaker 4: tariffs instead of making it all about the sort of
Speaker 4: anti Trump narrative and sort of weeping into their lattes
Speaker 4: about the end of the special relationship between the US
Speaker 4: and Australia, which of course is nowhere near close to
Speaker 4: the truth at all. So I would like to see
Speaker 4: a bit more discussion, a bit more robust discussion about
Speaker 4: what it means now. I mean, Robert's piece was a
Speaker 4: classic example of that. I think, as you've pointed out, Caroline.
Speaker 2: And look, while that discussion, well that rages I should say,
Speaker 2: and Steve, you made the point. Here is the snippet
Speaker 2: from the Miserable Ghost chiming.
Speaker 5: In, I do not leave.
Speaker 7: You should give in to bullies right now? What Trump's
Speaker 7: Trump wants people to suck up to him and to
Speaker 7: be sick a fantic pretty much all the people I've
Speaker 7: seen international leaders that have sucked up to Trump and
Speaker 7: been sickerphans have been run over.
Speaker 2: And then Sarah Ferguson follows up with what I'm pretty
Speaker 2: sure was the question on everyone's mind, and the response
Speaker 2: was just astounding.
Speaker 8: Is it easier and better for Australia in this acute
Speaker 8: moment when the tariff decision is obviously being made if
Speaker 8: diplomacists are given the maximum opportunity to operate behind closed
Speaker 8: doors without your intervention.
Speaker 7: I never thought I'd have to defend free speech here
Speaker 7: on the seven point thirty report, and I'm glad you're
Speaker 7: you're you're a little bit.
Speaker 5: Embarrassed raising that with me.
Speaker 1: Defending free speech.
Speaker 2: Louise I thought that was a pretty fair question by
Speaker 2: Sarah Ferguson.
Speaker 4: Absolutely a fair question because as a former Prime minister,
Speaker 4: Malcolm tambull is in a very position he has to
Speaker 4: weigh up this sort of ego boost of commenting on
Speaker 4: issues over which he no longer has any jurisdiction versus
Speaker 4: the potential damage his comments can cause, particularly to the
Speaker 4: current Prime Minister of calls Anthony Albanezi. And by extension,
Speaker 4: I would add Peter Jutton as the Opposition leader to.
Speaker 5: That as well.
Speaker 4: So for him to just sort of then try and
Speaker 4: weaponize it as free speech, and look, I support free speech.
Speaker 4: He's entitled to his comments, but he has to be
Speaker 4: very careful what he says going forward as well, like
Speaker 4: any ex prime minister does.
Speaker 2: And Steve, look, I know the media they love to have,
Speaker 2: you know, past politicians commentate on things that happens all
Speaker 2: of the time. I'm even surprised by Timbull with the
Speaker 2: approach that he took, and I'm probably giving him a
Speaker 2: little bit more credit.
Speaker 1: Obviously Trump didn't hold back on him.
Speaker 2: That just sets everything back as far as I'm concerned,
Speaker 2: you know, for Australia.
Speaker 5: And that's the point.
Speaker 6: And I made this comment earlier in the week on
Speaker 6: Chris Kenny's program that Malcolm Turnble's actually right in some
Speaker 6: of the comments he's made, but making them isn't helpful.
Speaker 6: And the reality is that you can talk about free
Speaker 6: speech all you like, but free speech has consequences, and
Speaker 6: when a former prime minister decides to insert himself in
Speaker 6: to aggrandize his own ego rather than actually help the country,
Speaker 6: it does set things back. You know, He's right, Trump
Speaker 6: does want sick of fans, but it doesn't help for
Speaker 6: a former prime minister of the country when we're in
Speaker 6: these negotiations to come out and call Trump out for
Speaker 6: what he thinks of him.
Speaker 5: That is not going to help anybody.
Speaker 6: And the consequences of Malcolm Turnble's free speech is that
Speaker 6: once again he's put himself ahead of the country, which
Speaker 6: well he did for his entire Prime ministership didn't he.
Speaker 2: Well, there is that, and I think you'll find some
Speaker 2: people who would sympathize with that view.
Speaker 1: Absolutely.
Speaker 2: Steve now on to our friends at the ABC and
Speaker 2: Hugh Marx, Well he starts as ABC's managing director on Monday.
Speaker 2: David Anderson, the former managing director, will he tap the
Speaker 2: mat and parted ways with the public broadcaster and the
Speaker 2: new era is here also all of us long suffering
Speaker 2: tax payers hope anyway.
Speaker 1: Columnists for the AFR Pro Gowart offered.
Speaker 2: Some long overdue and probably really refreshing advice, suggesting a
Speaker 2: Doge like efficiency is the fix for the ABC's news bias.
Speaker 2: Steve is an efficiency rinse at the ABC.
Speaker 1: Well, it sounds delightful to me. Is that what it needs?
Speaker 6: Look, I'd love to go over and check it out,
Speaker 6: but unfortunately my unicorns at the vets this week, so
Speaker 6: I can't ride into the ABC and see how their
Speaker 6: efficiency is going. But yeah, maybe get rid of getting
Speaker 6: rid of twice daily mail deliveries and tea ladies and
Speaker 6: all that kind of thing might be a start, But
Speaker 6: also maybe go back to its charter. Look, I think
Speaker 6: Prue gowit's onto something here. But I think she might
Speaker 6: be a little bit delusional thinking it's going to happen.
Speaker 2: Yeah, fair enough, And Louise, does the new managing director
Speaker 2: know what is coming?
Speaker 1: Does he know what is getting in for? Will he
Speaker 1: manage or will he join the collective?
Speaker 4: Well, let's hope he does not join the collective because
Speaker 4: the biggest challenge for him is making the ABC cost
Speaker 4: efficient and relevant to all of Australia. So that's an
Speaker 4: enormous task ahead of him and one he'll be acutely
Speaker 4: aware of a nodes that all eyes will be on
Speaker 4: him and trying to make that work. It's interesting though,
Speaker 4: because when he was leading Channel nine quite successfully, he
Speaker 4: was critical of the ABC and made a point I
Speaker 4: think of several years back, suggesting that Channel nine was
Speaker 4: thirty percent more efficient in production costs than the ABC,
Speaker 4: and he also said the ABC should focus on content
Speaker 4: that is not offered by the private sector, so that
Speaker 4: maybe would suggest it he'll take a knife to certain
Speaker 4: areas in order to shore up that budget. So it'll
Speaker 4: be very interesting to see what's ahead. He also has
Speaker 4: to work with Kim Williams. I think that you have
Speaker 4: to be very careful that he's looking at it in
Speaker 4: a pragmatic sense and not an ideological sense. So all
Speaker 4: eyes on you, Marks, I would.
Speaker 2: Think absolutely, and let's see how he goes with.
Speaker 1: Nailing that jello to the wall.
Speaker 2: Luise, Robert Stephen China Tempo, thank you so much for
Speaker 2: your time. Now after the break and everything it's Dan
Speaker 2: is racist, fascists and transphobic. We have that and more
Speaker 2: on the death throes of the mainstream media in the US.
Speaker 2: Welcome back to the show and now to Stars and Gripes,
Speaker 2: where we tear about the actions of the bitter activist
Speaker 2: masquerading as journalists in the United States. And joining me
Speaker 2: this week is Sky News contributor Kosher Gada and Kosher,
Speaker 2: we think the tariff debate is hated here in Australia.
Speaker 2: Here it is playing out in the US between Press
Speaker 2: Secretary and Caroline Levett and AP journalist Josh bog When
Speaker 2: he was.
Speaker 9: On the campaign trail, his big push was on tax cuts.
Speaker 10: He's going there today as he's proposing tax heights in
Speaker 10: a form of terrorists.
Speaker 1: Now and I'm curious he's now for why.
Speaker 11: He's prioritizing that over the tax cuts.
Speaker 9: He's actually not implementing tax hikes. Tariffs are a tax
Speaker 9: haike on foreign countries that again have been ripping us off.
Speaker 9: Tariffs are a tax cut for the American people. And
Speaker 9: the President is a staunch advocate of tax cuts.
Speaker 1: As you know, he campaigned on no.
Speaker 9: Taxes on tips, no taxes on overtime, no taxes on
Speaker 9: social security benefits. He is committed to all three of
Speaker 9: those things, and he expects Congress to pass them later
Speaker 9: this year.
Speaker 7: I'm sorry, have you.
Speaker 5: Ever paid a terre? Because I have.
Speaker 6: Don't get charged on foreign companies, they get charged on
Speaker 6: the importers.
Speaker 9: And ultimately, when we have fair and balanced trade, which
Speaker 9: the American people have not seen in decades, as I
Speaker 9: said at the beginning, revenues will stay here, wages will
Speaker 9: go up, and our country will be made wealthy again.
Speaker 9: And I think it's insulting that you are trying to
Speaker 9: test my knowledge of economics and the decisions that this
Speaker 9: president has made. I now regret giving a question to
Speaker 9: the Associated Press.
Speaker 2: And lasse hous Nicole Wallace will she fied back with
Speaker 2: these I.
Speaker 12: Mean, she's a wash and regret and re Morrison offense.
Speaker 12: But she's either tragically uninformed or lying. There is no
Speaker 12: economists that's been tapped to sit in Donald Trump's cabinet,
Speaker 12: who would testify under oath to what she just said, quote,
Speaker 12: tariffs are a tax cut for the American people. Simply
Speaker 12: the opposite is reality kosher.
Speaker 1: This is all becoming pretty hated. Who's the casualty here?
Speaker 13: Great to be with the Caroline, You know, I think
Speaker 13: that this one is a little bit of a roarershock
Speaker 13: test because tariffs are a controversial issue, as we all know,
Speaker 13: and there are many on both sides of the political
Speaker 13: isle who do not agree with it. It goes against
Speaker 13: fifty years or so of free market theory and economics
Speaker 13: and all of that. So to them, they would have
Speaker 13: seen it as a win for the other side, for
Speaker 13: the AP journalists. And then there's a whole bunch of
Speaker 13: people who just understand the concept of fair and balanced trade,
Speaker 13: as Caroline Lovett put it. They like the idea of
Speaker 13: re orienting America from a consumer driven society to a
Speaker 13: production driven society. And even if that means consumer pricing
Speaker 13: for goods go up little bit, if it brings back
Speaker 13: manufacturing and jobs and everything that comes with that society
Speaker 13: lead back home, that's a win. So for those folks.
Speaker 13: I think they'd be a team. Caroline Lovett over there.
Speaker 13: I think another thing that was interesting too is in
Speaker 13: the follow up question that the AP journalist asked. He
Speaker 13: was a little bit pejorative, where he questioned her like,
Speaker 13: have you ever paid a tariff?
Speaker 1: Because I have?
Speaker 13: And what that really was? I think the very lead
Speaker 13: There is a war of credibility between the two, and
Speaker 13: it's worth remembering. You know, she flipped that on him.
Speaker 13: She didn't let that slide. She said, you know, you're
Speaker 13: questioning my understanding of economics. It's worth remembering journalists typically,
Speaker 13: not all, but typically, and certainly he, because I looked
Speaker 13: up his background, is not an economist either. He's never
Speaker 13: run a business as far as I can tell, so
Speaker 13: he doesn't actually have practical understanding of how tariffs could
Speaker 13: be absorbed along the supply chain. And so for him
Speaker 13: to question her credibility, I don't think he came across
Speaker 13: as particularly credible either. And that goes back to that
Speaker 13: roarershock test. I think of how people are going to
Speaker 13: see that exchange.
Speaker 2: Sure, but it was a very very interesting exceriences, like
Speaker 2: you have to say, and the US show the view well,
Speaker 2: it provides us with some of our more unhinged content,
Speaker 2: I would say, and this ran from Whoopi Goldberg while
Speaker 2: trans woman Dylan.
Speaker 1: Mulvaaney was on the show.
Speaker 2: Well, I think this left pretty much everyone speechless.
Speaker 14: The problem that the trans community is facing, and it's
Speaker 14: the same problem that women face, is if you don't
Speaker 14: know anything about our bodies, you don't know how it works.
Speaker 14: So when you come in and you say, oh, you
Speaker 14: know these men, these are men, you know, competing and
Speaker 14: competing against women, you're assuming that the women are weak
Speaker 14: and just can't do anything yourself.
Speaker 5: Here.
Speaker 14: Have you seen female athletes? They know what they're doing.
Speaker 14: So I'm not sure what's going on or why.
Speaker 5: This is an issue.
Speaker 14: The same for me as when people say, oh, you know,
Speaker 14: I don't know how I feel about you.
Speaker 4: You do.
Speaker 14: God doesn't make mistakes, And the challenge is not to
Speaker 14: the trans people, is to the people who are not trans.
Speaker 14: That's what God is looking to see.
Speaker 1: How you treat people. Yeah, that's what that value is.
Speaker 14: Happy.
Speaker 2: Even Dilla Monviny looks uncomfortable, does what we think she's
Speaker 2: helping here?
Speaker 10: On some level?
Speaker 13: I hope she does think that because that was quite
Speaker 13: the rant. You know, this issue is one of the
Speaker 13: few that's an eighty twenty issue. Eighty percent of the
Speaker 13: American electorate agrees that boys should not be playing in
Speaker 13: girls sports, men should not be playing in women's sports,
Speaker 13: regardless of how you believe or feel about the trans
Speaker 13: community and what rights they should be eligible for or not,
Speaker 13: and all the rest of it. This is a very
Speaker 13: unifying issue. It was a big, high contrast moment in
Speaker 13: the presidential election. It was actually the reason why Trump
Speaker 13: won a lot of those suburban moms and people groups
Speaker 13: like that that he was typically softer with and not
Speaker 13: didn't have as much support with.
Speaker 4: They really rallied.
Speaker 13: Behind him on this issue. So she seems to be
Speaker 13: doubling down to that twenty p As for you know
Speaker 13: how she tried to frame it as, oh, you know,
Speaker 13: women athletes know what they're doing, and she tried to
Speaker 13: flip it as though it's sort of denigrating women. Ask
Speaker 13: any of them, from Riley Gaines to Peton McNabb who
Speaker 13: was injured because of a biological male spiking volleyball in
Speaker 13: her face. There is a reality to this. It's common sense.
Speaker 13: Everybody sees it. But she's she's one of the last
Speaker 13: true believers Carolines. So I think that's where she's going
Speaker 13: to stick.
Speaker 2: Without twenty percent, She's going to be very lonely very soon.
Speaker 1: Now.
Speaker 2: During Trump's recent joint speech to Congress, he.
Speaker 15: Said this eight billion dollars for making mice transgender.
Speaker 5: This is real.
Speaker 2: C and N went on to fact check that comment,
Speaker 2: claiming that Trump's statement was false. Anyway, the White House
Speaker 2: released the information on quite literally gender transition treatments given
Speaker 2: to animals like mice, showing that Trump's claim was true.
Speaker 1: CE and N.
Speaker 2: Well, then it backtracked on its fact check.
Speaker 1: This is all quite confusing.
Speaker 2: And then say an a guess go on to say
Speaker 2: this totally unchallenged.
Speaker 1: We don't really need the transgender mice, do we?
Speaker 5: I mean, it is I'm sorry man, it's real. Listen,
Speaker 5: is it real or not?
Speaker 16: Hold a second?
Speaker 5: Did we did we have to did we have to
Speaker 5: say it was real or not? It's real?
Speaker 4: I mean was a sheep?
Speaker 16: So my point listen, what they weren't talking about trans
Speaker 16: don't defend the mice. No, no, listen, you don't want
Speaker 16: to talk about it.
Speaker 15: We don't talk about it.
Speaker 16: But and then this, I would also like to see
Speaker 16: this done with honesty. When the president comes in and
Speaker 16: says we're giving all this money for transgender mice, and
Speaker 16: it's transgenic mice which actually help us fight cancer. Or
Speaker 16: when we say, oh we cut eight billion, it was
Speaker 16: actually eight million. You're not doing this in an honest
Speaker 16: and transparent way, and even worse, you are pretending to
Speaker 16: be transparent when you are not. And you know, if
Speaker 16: this was a movie or a book and this person
Speaker 16: cut the Department of Education then showed an absolute lack
Speaker 16: of understanding of government in his behavior, he'd be like,
Speaker 16: that was too on the nose. You can't have him
Speaker 16: cutting the d wee and then not knowing enough to
Speaker 16: do his job. The incompetence is.
Speaker 2: Ranked kosher CNN, along with much of the mainstream. Maybe
Speaker 2: they've got a bit of work to do, you know,
Speaker 2: patching their credibility back together.
Speaker 1: Carry on like this.
Speaker 2: Again, and we've talked about this already earlier in the show.
Speaker 1: How does this help?
Speaker 13: Yeah, they do have just a little bit of work
Speaker 13: to do to patch up their credibility, for sure. This
Speaker 13: is another one where they're missing the forest for the
Speaker 13: trees and they're just splicing these details about. You know,
Speaker 13: it's transgenic instead of transgender. I actually don't know what
Speaker 13: that means, or the dollar amount was not exactly precise,
Speaker 13: And they're getting into semantics about what the purpose of
Speaker 13: the experiment was. Was it just about converting mice or was
Speaker 13: it using them as a lab model to figure something
Speaker 13: out for humans. Nobody cares. That's minutia that they're splicing
Speaker 13: the details. The big picture that people care about is
Speaker 13: that there is unlimited, crazy amounts of fraud, waste, and
Speaker 13: abuse in the government that Trump is actually doing something
Speaker 13: about for the first time in decades. Everybody talks about it,
Speaker 13: nobody's done it. He's doing something with it through DOGE
Speaker 13: and other means. And also the transition that we just
Speaker 13: talked about is another eighty twenty issue. So nobody wants
Speaker 13: to see this stuff. And what they're doing is they're
Speaker 13: falling in the frame of like arguing in details and
Speaker 13: missing the big picture. I guess on purpose, and I
Speaker 13: don't think that's going to go very far to repair
Speaker 13: their credibility, which has many issues with it. And this
Speaker 13: is the wrong path for sure.
Speaker 2: And just going on from that, you know, many things
Speaker 2: should have been really obvious in the last presidential election,
Speaker 2: including you know Americans, they seek of illegal immigration, they're
Speaker 2: seek of government wise, they're seek of feeling as though
Speaker 2: everyone gets put ahead of Americans. Obviously, the Democrats, they
Speaker 2: blame sexism and racism for Kamala's loss, despite the fact
Speaker 2: that she was.
Speaker 1: Legitimately a terrible candidate. And this blame Doge for Look
Speaker 1: just watch the video yourself.
Speaker 10: There are people who are charged with trying to find savings. So, yes,
Speaker 10: it's an attack on government, but it's also an attack
Speaker 10: on this government. What I mean by that is it's
Speaker 10: an attack on this government that used to be headed
Speaker 10: by a black man. It's an attack on this government
Speaker 10: that almost elected a black woman to the highest office
Speaker 10: in the land. It's an attack on a government that
Speaker 10: has been more welcoming and more supportive of people who
Speaker 10: have come to this country and search for a better life.
Speaker 2: Kosher doje is racist?
Speaker 1: Again? Do these people refuse to learn.
Speaker 13: That old chestnut? It's such a trustee argument for them,
Speaker 13: and it has worked for a period of time. Label
Speaker 13: everybody racist, sexist, misogynist, you know, whatever the slur is.
Speaker 13: And he's going back to that. And I also love
Speaker 13: how he was going back to President Obama, who was
Speaker 13: legitimately very popular, even though many people from the right
Speaker 13: side of politics obviously did not agree with most of
Speaker 13: his policy agenda. He was a gifted politician and was
Speaker 13: very popular. So I think he's trying to attach that
Speaker 13: or claim to the golden years of the Democrat Party,
Speaker 13: which is the Obama years, and say that this is
Speaker 13: an attack on that, even though most of the spending
Speaker 13: has been in place for decades and decades and decades
Speaker 13: well before Obama, not only from him. So it made
Speaker 13: no sense. But I think it's just like a very
Speaker 13: intellectually lazy argument to make, and when all else fails
Speaker 13: and you're on camera, go to racism.
Speaker 1: Every time, and it seems to work for them.
Speaker 2: It seems to go totally unchallenged, and then we just
Speaker 2: we stay exactly where we are without improving that position.
Speaker 1: Kosher Gata, thank you so much for your time.
Speaker 2: After the break, and we have the low lights of
Speaker 2: the ABC this week, including a hit piece on the
Speaker 2: Australian War Memorial.
Speaker 1: Jared Henderson joins me next.
Speaker 2: Welcome back and joining me now, as he does each
Speaker 2: and every week, This Guy News, Australia's media watched your columnist,
Speaker 2: Jared Henderson Jared Lovely to have you back and look
Speaker 2: while reporting on Trump's decision to you know, slap to
Speaker 2: Braffs on Australia.
Speaker 1: ABC.
Speaker 2: Journo Melissa Clark made this astonishing claim on Our and Breakfast.
Speaker 17: Their argument is somewhat undercut by someone from their own side.
Speaker 17: Former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull yesterday saying whilst he was
Speaker 17: able to secure an exemption last Trump administration, that took
Speaker 17: over a year, and the circumstances this time are very different.
Speaker 2: Malcolm Turnbull on the Liberal side, well, it's been a
Speaker 2: long time and I'm not quite so sure about that.
Speaker 1: How about this?
Speaker 2: If I said the name Peter Dutton, what one word
Speaker 2: springs into your mind?
Speaker 1: Thug jered, What was your reaction?
Speaker 4: Well?
Speaker 15: I found it pretty funny actually, because if anyone understands
Speaker 15: Malcolm Turnbull and the current Liberal Party, it's pretty clear
Speaker 15: he's not on the side of people like Peter Dutton,
Speaker 15: and he's the leader of the Liberal Party and the
Speaker 15: leader of the coalition. So when I saw this, the
Speaker 15: idea that Peter Dutton's argument, whether it's valid or not,
Speaker 15: is somehow diminished by the fact that Malcolm Turnbull doesn't
Speaker 15: agree with it because he's on dutton side. I mean,
Speaker 15: that's just totally fallacious. He's not on Peter dutton side.
Speaker 15: He's on his own side and is entitled to be.
Speaker 15: But the idea that somehow you bring him into this
Speaker 15: debate is one of these comments that is Melissa Clark
Speaker 15: is now doing and others on the ABC when someone
Speaker 15: is interviewed, someone comes on and makes a comment about
Speaker 15: what they think about it. I mean Melissa Clark or
Speaker 15: Peter Martin or someone else. But it just totally misunderstands
Speaker 15: Malcolm Turnbull's position. He hasn't been a strong supporter of
Speaker 15: the Liberal Party since he was the Liberal Party leader
Speaker 15: and lost the support of a majority of his colleagues
Speaker 15: in the party room in twenty eighteen. I don't think
Speaker 15: he would deny that himself. I think he would be
Speaker 15: surprised to think he was on Peter Dutton's side on
Speaker 15: any issue.
Speaker 2: Correct, And it has been a downhill since twenty eighteen.
Speaker 2: Now over at the Public Broadcaster and it's chief political correspondent,
Speaker 2: well Laura Tingle, she had this analysis of the situation
Speaker 2: on seven.
Speaker 18: Thirty Australian politicians have expended a lot of oxygen hyperbole
Speaker 18: over the years extolling the virtues and depth of the
Speaker 18: special friendship we have with the United States. It has
Speaker 18: justified jumping on board American military adventures, hosting defense facilities
Speaker 18: and military bases, and more recently an orchest alliance which
Speaker 18: makes us even more dependent on the US for our
Speaker 18: defense strategy. On the domestic political stage, the US alliance
Speaker 18: is played out in terms of schoolyard besties. Prime ministers
Speaker 18: are judged in terms of whether they are best mates
Speaker 18: with the President of the day.
Speaker 1: And then she followed up with this.
Speaker 18: If anyone should know about the difficulties of getting foreign
Speaker 18: leaders on the phone, it's the leader of the Federal Coalition.
Speaker 18: When last in government, the coalition was unable to get
Speaker 18: anyone in the Chinese government to speak to Coalition ministers
Speaker 18: for several years about all the trade restrictions imposed on
Speaker 18: Australian products on its watch.
Speaker 2: Jared, is this straying a bit towards activism?
Speaker 15: Well, the new ABC chair when he came in about
Speaker 15: a year ago, Kim Williams. He hasn't done I think
Speaker 15: a lot of things that he should have done, but
Speaker 15: he has condemned activism and that's an example of pure activism.
Speaker 15: Laura Tingle there is editorializing. She's an activist commentator and
Speaker 15: some of the things she says are profoundly false. I mean,
Speaker 15: the idea that somehow that Australia shouldn't have been involved
Speaker 15: with the United States and the Pacific War when many
Speaker 15: thought the very future of Australia was at stake is
Speaker 15: just a ludicrous proposition and I think if Miss Tingle
Speaker 15: had a chance to consider it, she wouldn't say it again.
Speaker 15: But she's too involved in the politics of it all.
Speaker 15: And that came out later in the same comment that
Speaker 15: she used in the introduction and when she was again
Speaker 15: taking an activist in an activist's role about China. I mean,
Speaker 15: for example, I can understand that there is a problem
Speaker 15: getting in touch with President Bush. I don't know whether
Speaker 15: Peter Dutton would have been able to do so he
Speaker 15: was Prime Minister or not. He may have. Anthony Albinezi
Speaker 15: on the third occasion wasn't. But it's got nothing to
Speaker 15: do with China. The argument Australia had with China, and
Speaker 15: most people now would conceide that China was the aggressor
Speaker 15: in that argument. You're dealing there with the head of
Speaker 15: the Chinese Communist Party. In the United States, you're dealing
Speaker 15: with the democratically elected leader of the United States, and
Speaker 15: we do have our disagreements with the United States. But
Speaker 15: there's no comparison between trying to get a phone call
Speaker 15: with Donald Trump and not being able to get a
Speaker 15: phone call with President z. There's just no valid comparison.
Speaker 15: It's just it's not a sensible proposition unless you want
Speaker 15: to score a point against Peter Dutton, which is what
Speaker 15: Laura Tingle was doing and.
Speaker 1: Jared just a little a little bit more on that.
Speaker 2: Look, these are really complicated issues, These are.
Speaker 1: Really nuanced issues.
Speaker 2: Do you feel like sometimes that context or that nuance
Speaker 2: against lost.
Speaker 1: In that sort of in that sort of editorializing.
Speaker 15: Well, it does because it doesn't really it doesn't examine
Speaker 15: the arguments because it is an editorial position, and when
Speaker 15: people can get to hear both arguments, both sides of
Speaker 15: this argument, those people usually can form their own opinion.
Speaker 15: But it is a complicated matter. It's not a simple matter.
Speaker 15: But when it's presented as a simple matter, I don't
Speaker 15: know where anyone goes from there. But there absolutely no
Speaker 15: comparison between our relationship with the United States and our
Speaker 15: relationship with China now or a few years ago. There's
Speaker 15: absolutely no comparison whatsoever.
Speaker 1: No fair enough.
Speaker 2: And finally the ABC rolled out Mark Willersy on its
Speaker 2: Full Corners program to put together well, you'd have to
Speaker 2: call it a hit piece.
Speaker 1: On the Australian War Memorial.
Speaker 2: Here's the kind of people they chose for the interview.
Speaker 17: Redevelopment is to put it bluntly in abomination.
Speaker 11: No, I think that's dirty money. It should not be
Speaker 11: accepting money from merchants of death.
Speaker 1: And here's what they had to say on Afghanistan.
Speaker 11: The panel next to the display is to me, the
Speaker 11: most merely mouthed of writing the memorials ever put up.
Speaker 11: It was completely inadequate because it didn't explain the moral
Speaker 11: vacuum that those soldiers have fallen into.
Speaker 2: Jared Unfortunately, the ABC falls into this trap where there's
Speaker 2: not much in the way of alternative views, and I
Speaker 2: feel like that's what's happened to here.
Speaker 15: Well, Peter Stanley is a good historian, but on this matter,
Speaker 15: I mean, there's just the left wing view that there's
Speaker 15: something wrong with the armaments industry. But if we didn't
Speaker 15: have an arm industry in the Second World War, the
Speaker 15: other side would have won. I mean, this is the
Speaker 15: old left wing thing about the agents of death. Now
Speaker 15: my problem with the program. I mean, the other argument
Speaker 15: is that that the War Memorial shouldn't be extended. But
Speaker 15: they put the two of them together plus some others
Speaker 15: to run a line. So three people who were connected
Speaker 15: with the War Memorial who would expect to support it,
Speaker 15: the chair, the managing director and a board member, they
Speaker 15: got brief says, and then the ten other people they
Speaker 15: rolled out. Ten of them were opposed, so there was
Speaker 15: absolutely no balance whatsoever. And Mark Willisy himself, the presenter,
Speaker 15: he was vehemently opposed, So you had sort of an
Speaker 15: eleven three. But the three viewer would think, well, they
Speaker 15: would say that, wouldn't they they're running the joint. But
Speaker 15: all the other people who are not running the joint
Speaker 15: come in and bag it. And some of the things,
Speaker 15: as said, are completely offensive. And I think most Australians
Speaker 15: admire the War Memorial, Many who know anything about it
Speaker 15: would think it probably after all these years, should be
Speaker 15: extended a bit beyond when it was last extended. But
Speaker 15: somehow just condemn it all with only one side really
Speaker 15: of the debate heard, it really means that under Kim Williams,
Speaker 15: and he's only the chairman, he's not the managing director,
Speaker 15: so be fair to him. But under the new chair
Speaker 15: it's no different to what it was under the old chair.
Speaker 15: There's still no viewpoint diversity, and a program like that
Speaker 15: on four corners, a very influential program should have heard
Speaker 15: from different views and I could produce many people, intelligent,
Speaker 15: articular people, men and women who would rock up and
Speaker 15: say the exact opposite, but they didn't get a chance.
Speaker 1: Jared Henderson, thank you for your analysis. As always, Now
Speaker 1: that's all we have a time for this evening up.
Speaker 1: Next is news Note