Speaker 1: This is the Media Show, with Jack outing Hello and
Speaker 1: welcome to the Media Show. Tonight, we'll take a look
Speaker 1: at coverage of the Olympics and an end to damaging
Speaker 1: strikes at nine plus. Later on we reveal the salary
Speaker 1: of a key media watch staffer. But first, all eyes
Speaker 1: are on Paris, with one Australian newsroom forking out hundreds
Speaker 1: and millions of dollars for broadcast rights. But the event,
Speaker 1: which is supposed to showcase the best athletes that humanity
Speaker 1: has to offer, has been marred by scandal after scandal
Speaker 1: which has dominated news headlines.
Speaker 2: It's the self declared Green Games. But while Paris is
Speaker 2: being busy spooking its carbon friendly credentials, the push to
Speaker 2: go green has left many athletes seeing red.
Speaker 3: We haven't seen this at Olympic Games before. We haven't
Speaker 3: had this amount of complaints about a village in Olympic history.
Speaker 1: From hard cardboard beds to running out of meat in
Speaker 1: the athletes village. Parisians are seeking to be more climate friendly,
Speaker 1: and they've shifted the focus from the app athletes to
Speaker 1: poor conditions. But how much of it is about so
Speaker 1: called sustainability and how much is a bunch of cheap
Speaker 1: beds and bad food a cost cutting initiative. CNBC reports
Speaker 1: why the Paris Olympics costs so much less than Rio,
Speaker 1: London or Tokyo. The chief advantage this time can be
Speaker 1: summed up in two words. Existing infrastructure. Temporary facilities also
Speaker 1: played a role in keeping costs down. Now journalists blindly
Speaker 1: accepting that this was all green initiative are just feeding
Speaker 1: you pr talking points. Having less meat on order might
Speaker 1: seem green, but it's actually way cheaper when you have
Speaker 1: to mass produce food. Make no mistake though, Those processed
Speaker 1: plant based burgers are horrendously bad for you. It is
Speaker 1: texturized goo and not something anyone should be eating.
Speaker 4: Well.
Speaker 1: Joining me this week on the Panels the Australians Darren
Speaker 1: Davidson and two Double Sea hosts Stephen Senetiero. Well, Darren,
Speaker 1: let's start with you.
Speaker 5: I mean, this.
Speaker 1: Whole vegan scandal, this is the one thing that I
Speaker 1: look at. I just cannot believe that they thought that
Speaker 1: athletes who are every single calorie, they're counting, every single
Speaker 1: vitamin that they're watching, they've got very specific diets. What
Speaker 1: on earth were they thinking?
Speaker 6: Yeah, I mean, it's a shame that everything's becoming politicized
Speaker 6: at the Olympics. They are, as you pointed out, horrendously
Speaker 6: expensive to host and stage, and they leave cities and
Speaker 6: economies with these big kind of legacy cost issues after
Speaker 6: everyone's pat up and gone home. But really everyone should
Speaker 6: be focusing on the credible, herculean efforts and the amazing
Speaker 6: feats that we're seeing that you'd hope that would be
Speaker 6: the main story. And there's some of these incredible young
Speaker 6: athletes who have been training so hard for many years.
Speaker 6: You know, you would really want the focus to be
Speaker 6: on that, and that's where you know, media companies are
Speaker 6: investing their dollars and big amatizing and sponsors are investing
Speaker 6: their dollars, and I think they would hope as well
Speaker 6: that that's where we're the focus is. It's a shame
Speaker 6: that this has become the story that it has.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and Stephen, I think a lot of journalists are
Speaker 1: really allowing some of these propaganda points around climate change
Speaker 1: and green initiatives to bleed into their reporting, because yes,
Speaker 1: lowering the carbon footprint is one thing, but we know
Speaker 1: that a lot of companies do this just to save money,
Speaker 1: and we're letting them, letting them give these athletes poor conditions,
Speaker 1: but we're putting this kind of this air of nobility.
Speaker 5: Around it, making it seem like a moral good thing.
Speaker 5: What are your.
Speaker 4: Thoughts, Well, look, I think you're right, but I will
Speaker 4: give Paris one will let off here, and that is
Speaker 4: that nobody else wanted to host these games because they
Speaker 4: are too expensive. So the fact that France and Paris
Speaker 4: have actually picked it up and run with it, I
Speaker 4: suppose it's a good thing. We still get to see
Speaker 4: all the athletes, and we're covering the games on our station,
Speaker 4: so you know, we talk about the sport, but you
Speaker 4: know there's a lot going on around these games that,
Speaker 4: as Darren says, is just distracting away from what we
Speaker 4: should talk about. Obviously, there was something recently, that boxing
Speaker 4: issue that has distracted away from what should be all
Speaker 4: about the athletes as well. But look, it's the Olympics.
Speaker 4: It's a bit of a circus. Paris at the best
Speaker 4: of times is a bit of a circus. You put
Speaker 4: those two things together and I think this is what
Speaker 4: you get. But I think you've got to remember that
Speaker 4: the Aussies and this could actually play into our favor
Speaker 4: because the Australian Olympic Committee has actually sent container loads
Speaker 4: of our own food over. They've got taco Tuesdays in
Speaker 4: the Australian village on every Tuesday they've sent over. I
Speaker 4: think something like three four and twenty pis so our
Speaker 4: ossie athletes will be fine.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think there's going to be a lot of
Speaker 1: top chefs that are humiliated with the kind of feedback
Speaker 1: and headlines that are coming out because it's the culinary
Speaker 1: capital of the world. I mean they claim they hold
Speaker 1: themselves up a very high standard. Jack, I'm Italian. Let's
Speaker 1: be fair and inc Italy is the culinary capital of
Speaker 1: the world. Yeah, well, you guys love to go head
Speaker 1: to head on that. But look, let's stay on the Olympics,
Speaker 1: but move on to another scandal which has dominated headlines
Speaker 1: and left view is extremely confused and angry.
Speaker 5: Well, this was a moment of history.
Speaker 7: It happened earlier today in France, and a major controversy
Speaker 7: too has now erupted out of Paris. An Algerian boxer
Speaker 7: shown in the red uniform, who failed a gender eligibility
Speaker 7: test last year, has now won an opening fight after
Speaker 7: only forty six seconds, her opponents breaking down in tears,
Speaker 7: calling it quote unjust.
Speaker 1: Algerian boxer Amin Khalif, who has male chromosomes, ended the
Speaker 1: fight in just forty six seconds. Now that reports the
Speaker 1: Khalif is inter six as opposed to transgender, and many
Speaker 1: in the media were scathing at the IOC for allowing
Speaker 1: the fight to go ahead.
Speaker 3: A boxer deemed a biological male beating an Italian female opponent,
Speaker 3: with the Italian crying out, I couldn't take it anymore.
Speaker 3: Despite failing that gender test by the International Boxing Association
Speaker 3: and being banned from an international tournament last year, Algerian
Speaker 3: twenty five year old Emman Khalif was okayed by Olympic
Speaker 3: authorities to compete, and apparently today it was a very
Speaker 3: one sided fight with Italian Angela Karini, also twenty five.
Speaker 3: After just forty six seconds and several sharp punches to
Speaker 3: the head, including the nose by Khalif, Karini abandoned the
Speaker 3: faith well.
Speaker 1: In response to the media reporting, the Algerian Olympic Committee
Speaker 1: came out swinging. They said, the CoA strongly condemns the
Speaker 1: unethical targeting and maligning of our steamed athlete Iman Khalif
Speaker 1: with baseless propaganda from certain foreign media outlets. Now let's
Speaker 1: bring the panel back into discuss I mean, this is
Speaker 1: again another scandal that the Olympics did not need to have.
Speaker 1: They probably should have figured out that there was going
Speaker 1: to be this backlash. It is the when we're talking
Speaker 1: about men or intersects and the advantage over women in sports.
Speaker 1: When it's violence, when its actual you know, boxing and
Speaker 1: fists been thrown, that is when the public really just
Speaker 1: does not tolerated. But now you've got a situation where
Speaker 1: media outlets Darren have spent hundreds of millions of dollars
Speaker 1: to cover the sports and we're not even really talking
Speaker 1: about the sports anymore.
Speaker 6: Yeah. Absolutely, I mean that the investment that media companies
Speaker 6: and sponsors have made is that is huge, and this
Speaker 6: is not where they would like, you know, the focus
Speaker 6: to be. And as we were saying earlier, I'd hope
Speaker 6: that the focus of the stories and what we were celebrating,
Speaker 6: these incredible herculeting efforts and the skill and the professionalism
Speaker 6: and the dedication of the athletes. And you know, Mike
Speaker 6: m I've got two infants, two and a half and
Speaker 6: four and a half, and they are obsessed with the
Speaker 6: NPX like they are totally obsessed. They're memorized by the
Speaker 6: gymnastics and things like that. And for me, my reaction
Speaker 6: when I saw that clip, I mean, it's just absolutely brutal.
Speaker 6: It's really ugly, and it's quite upsetting to see this
Speaker 6: boxer on the on the on the canvas, crying about
Speaker 6: being absolutely pummeled by what looks like may have been
Speaker 6: an uneven fight that maybe shouldn't have happened. I don't
Speaker 6: know details whether that's actually been verified or not.
Speaker 1: But yeah, the reports are intersex and Stephen, the reports
Speaker 1: are x y chromosomes, male chromosomes. You can't be a
Speaker 1: woman and have those chromosomes. That's the main point. Was
Speaker 1: there an advantage? I mean, to Darren's point, you look
Speaker 1: at the footage, the force behind the punch, the way
Speaker 1: that this woman was hitting the face, and then her
Speaker 1: reaction breaking down in tears as her Olympic dream is
Speaker 1: put to an end by this placement. It to me
Speaker 1: does not seem fair.
Speaker 4: Well, there's a couple of things that need to be clarified.
Speaker 4: Angela Careni actually called the fight off herself. She went
Speaker 4: to her corner and said, I'm not doing this anymore.
Speaker 4: After forty six seconds and two punches. That was all
Speaker 4: it took. Because the reality is that this other boxer
Speaker 4: and look, I'm not blaming the other boxer for this,
Speaker 4: because the International Olympic Committee's got to take full ownership
Speaker 4: and responsibility for what happened to here. But Imman Khalif
Speaker 4: was actually banned from women's competition by the International Boxing
Speaker 4: Asation previously. Now, because the IOC has decided to take
Speaker 4: over boxing and shunt the IBA aside, they've made their
Speaker 4: own rules up and they put somebody in this fight now.
Speaker 4: Angela Karini is a two time Italian champion. She's not
Speaker 4: adverse to getting punched in the face, that's what boxers do.
Speaker 4: But she said to her corner in that moment, I
Speaker 4: have never been punched that hard before in my life.
Speaker 4: Why because she's fighting against an athlete that has a
Speaker 4: superior advantage because of levels of testosterone and X Y chromosomes.
Speaker 4: The reality is she was fighting against somebody that should
Speaker 4: not have been in the same category as her, and
Speaker 4: after forty six seconds said I don't want to borrow
Speaker 4: this anymore. That's what happened here, and the IOC has
Speaker 4: got to take full ownership of this, and of course
Speaker 4: they're skating away saying no, it's all the media's fault.
Speaker 4: Move along, nothing to see here. Well, when it gets
Speaker 4: to boxing, now we saw there's two athletes in the
Speaker 4: Zambian football team who played against the Matildas the other
Speaker 4: day that have previously banned from previous competition but were
Speaker 4: allowed to play in the Olympics because of the same issue.
Speaker 4: Again sanctioning that. But in this case, we're talking about
Speaker 4: pugilistic sport. We're talking about marshall sports where somebody can
Speaker 4: get physically hurt, and that is where you've got to
Speaker 4: at least draw the line.
Speaker 5: That's the point.
Speaker 1: But staying on the Olympics, the United States has shot
Speaker 1: up in the gold medal tally, but at the time
Speaker 1: we went to air was still trailing behind China. It
Speaker 1: might be why US media outlets have flipped the metal
Speaker 1: tally counting method to count total medals equally as opposed
Speaker 1: to the number of golds.
Speaker 5: The Nightly Reports.
Speaker 1: The official Olympic website ranks countries on golds rather than totals,
Speaker 1: but several American outlets, including the country's hosts broadcast to NBC,
Speaker 1: have opted to rank countries on their total number of medals,
Speaker 1: one which moves the USA team up into first place
Speaker 1: and bring the panel back. Now, Stephen, it doesn't get
Speaker 1: more American than that. If they're not ahead, let's change
Speaker 1: the metrics by which we're measuring and then go Team USA.
Speaker 4: Look, you know my American patriotism.
Speaker 5: Don't get me wrong.
Speaker 4: I think where I'd like to see it's more like
Speaker 4: that here in Australia. But this is just typical American bs.
Speaker 4: I mean, look, they call this, but the Baseball over
Speaker 4: is the World Series. Nobody else plays in it. You know,
Speaker 4: whoever wins the NFL that was Super Bowl is the
Speaker 4: world champions. I mean, look, they kid themselves on every
Speaker 4: level in America when it comes to this concept of
Speaker 4: American exceptionalism, and this is just another example.
Speaker 5: Look good on them.
Speaker 4: If it's only being done in their own media and
Speaker 4: they can live in their own delusion, so be it, Darren.
Speaker 5: Let's bring you in.
Speaker 6: Yeah, I mean, I'm sure that mythology will change again
Speaker 6: at some point before the end of the games, and
Speaker 6: one way the other they'll be winning.
Speaker 5: But if they're down by total metals, they'll flip. Mexico
Speaker 5: wouldn't put it past them.
Speaker 1: We're going to take a quick break, but when we return,
Speaker 1: find out how much the ABC pays producers to make
Speaker 1: just fifteen minutes of television a week.
Speaker 5: Welcome back.
Speaker 1: There's been an end to strikes which have plagued nine
Speaker 1: newsrooms and put a dampener on their expensive newspaper coverage.
Speaker 1: Now keeping in mind that a large contingent of these
Speaker 1: reporters put down tools while on an all expense paid
Speaker 1: trip to Paris, it's pretty ungrateful stuff. And while staff
Speaker 1: appraising as a victory, they only received a tiny bump.
Speaker 5: Over three years.
Speaker 1: The AFI reports nine entertainment journalists and editors and production
Speaker 1: staff have voted to approve a new enterprise bargaining deal,
Speaker 1: ending a six month standoff that culminated in postponed events,
Speaker 1: diminished news coverage, and the first strike at the mastheads
Speaker 1: since twenty seventeen. Let's bring the panel back in, Darren.
Speaker 1: It was really really bad timing for Nine management that
Speaker 1: have been dealing Nine as a broader company has obviously
Speaker 1: been dealing with a lot of scandals separately to this,
Speaker 1: but then they've forked out hundreds of millions of dollars
Speaker 1: for the games and staff in Paris have put down
Speaker 1: tools and just walked away.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 6: Look, to be clear, you know, no one is denying
Speaker 6: the rights of workers to join a new you and
Speaker 6: take industrial action. And obviously I worked for one of
Speaker 6: nine's competitors and this is not an opportunistic swing at
Speaker 6: them in any way whatsoever. But the timing was awful,
Speaker 6: like really bad. I mean it kind of showed to
Speaker 6: come and run at such a time during such a
Speaker 6: big size ofic news event, showed an unwillingness to negotiate
Speaker 6: with management and good faith. But the deal that they
Speaker 6: actually put on the table wasn't that bad. I think
Speaker 6: it was about ten point five percent over three years,
Speaker 6: which is a much better deal than most Australia and.
Speaker 1: Now what they're going up to about eleven and a
Speaker 1: half percent. They've gone through all of that for about
Speaker 1: an extra one or two percent, Yeah, over three years.
Speaker 6: And the original claim was or ask was twenty percent,
Speaker 6: which is pretty ambitious in this climate. At the moment,
Speaker 6: CPI running at two to three percent. I mean it's
Speaker 6: it's I feel for the advertisers. They've pointed out earlier,
Speaker 6: they've invested so much money.
Speaker 1: You're a good managing editor, feeling for the advertisers.
Speaker 6: And the readers as well, though more importantly the readers.
Speaker 6: You know, they're denying them the coverage. They're the exclusive
Speaker 6: rights holder. They've abandoned their readers, They've abandoned their advertisers.
Speaker 6: And you know that's not a good thing. Why not
Speaker 6: wait until after the Olympics?
Speaker 3: You know what?
Speaker 6: That have really made any difference?
Speaker 5: Yeah, it's a good point, Steven. Let's bring you in here.
Speaker 1: I mean, the result obviously was a positive result in
Speaker 1: that they are going to get paid a little bit
Speaker 1: more money, but not not significantly more money. And they've
Speaker 1: gone through a lot of pain to do that. They've
Speaker 1: cost themselves. I think of it as a journalist. I mean,
Speaker 1: what greater honor is there to go over to another
Speaker 1: country and cover the Olympics? To me, I just I
Speaker 1: cannot rationalize why you would forego five days of that
Speaker 1: and you know, not cover it as well as you
Speaker 1: possibly could for one or two percent pay. I can't
Speaker 1: personally rationalize it.
Speaker 5: What do you think, Well, there's a couple of things here.
Speaker 4: I imagine that they're thinking, was let's do it during
Speaker 4: the Olympics, because we've got them. You know, we've got
Speaker 4: them where we want. We got them, we have to
Speaker 4: actually give us what we want. Other world, Yeah, you know,
Speaker 4: so I imagine that's why they picked the timing. But
Speaker 4: I've got a lot of friends who work at nine
Speaker 4: Radio who are over there. We're earning considerably less than
Speaker 4: a lot of the people at nine newspapers, and they
Speaker 4: are treating this like the greatest.
Speaker 5: Honor they've ever experienced.
Speaker 4: And they're doing a great job, working ridiculous hours. So
Speaker 4: they must be looking at their colleagues over in the print.
Speaker 4: Ar'm thinking, what are you guys thinking? But I've got
Speaker 4: to the bottom of what it really I reckon They've
Speaker 4: looked at what ABC journals are being paid and thought,
Speaker 4: weang on a sec, what are we doing here?
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, definitely to get onto that in a little bit.
Speaker 1: But Darren, in terms of it's a really good point
Speaker 1: about the other parts of nine. Obviously this only impacted
Speaker 1: nine newspapers, but there does appear to be a cultural rift,
Speaker 1: and we saw that the television side of it. You
Speaker 1: had Karl Stefanovic was in the hotels, Mike Sneezbee is
Speaker 1: running around with the torch. There appears to be a
Speaker 1: little bit of a class warfare going on in the company,
Speaker 1: and it seems to be really hurting. It's leaking out publicly.
Speaker 6: Yeah, look, I mean not just for veny different the US.
Speaker 6: Are there differences. There are lots of journalists. We know
Speaker 6: this because James Madden Austraining has been editor, has spoken
Speaker 6: to loads of journalists within the publishing division over the
Speaker 6: past week and they had just made how this is
Speaker 6: being handled. So they're not actually even unified within the
Speaker 6: newspaper publishing division, much less radio and other parts of television,
Speaker 6: other parts of the business. But as you said earlier,
Speaker 6: like I really feel as well, just personally, for those
Speaker 6: fifteen to twenty journalists that went over there from the
Speaker 6: papers that were handed the assignment of a lifetime won
Speaker 6: a privilege and it's for five days, had to sit
Speaker 6: on their hands and not do anything, and this whole
Speaker 6: thing for them has been for evertonished by the timing
Speaker 6: of this industrial action.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I would have been a scab personally. I just
Speaker 1: want have kept on going. But look, let's move on
Speaker 1: down to the ABC, which recently got to serve from
Speaker 1: its former chair eid To Buttros, who admitted she thought
Speaker 1: the broadcaster had a degree of unconscious bias and needed
Speaker 1: to steal itself against criticism. Now, if you miss those comments,
Speaker 1: take a listen. Do you think the ABC is delivering
Speaker 1: with regards to objectivity and impartiality?
Speaker 8: I think there is an unconscious bias, and I think
Speaker 8: it's I think there's no harm in presenting both sides
Speaker 8: of an argument, and I don't understand the reluctance of
Speaker 8: some of our interviewers not to do that. We're also
Speaker 8: always unafraid to call out a news corporation, for instance,
Speaker 8: who has who have gone after ABC frontline reporters and
Speaker 8: presenters pretty hard, including may full disclosure. Is that something
Speaker 8: that you think is concerning and does it have a
Speaker 8: sort of chilling, chilling kind of I think quite frankly,
Speaker 8: I think you're too sensitive about NewsCorp you know. And
Speaker 8: if we can't take the critics, if the ABC can't
Speaker 8: take the criticism, well then it just just should give up.
Speaker 1: Well, the Media Union was unhappy with the obvious being
Speaker 1: pointed out. Ida Butcher's has no relevant role at the
Speaker 1: ABC any longer, and it comments are insulting to journalists
Speaker 1: who strive for accuracy and partiality as required by the
Speaker 1: NEAA Code of Ethics every day, and then this great
Speaker 1: line was published by the Australians. James Madden The Australian
Speaker 1: asked the Union why it suggested Miss Buttrose, who has
Speaker 1: worked in the media for more than five decades, was
Speaker 1: no longer qualified to discuss industry matters. The MEAA did
Speaker 1: not reply, Let's bring the panel back in, Steven. Let's
Speaker 1: go to you first on this. I mean, what are
Speaker 1: your thoughts.
Speaker 4: The breathtaking hypocrisy. Firstly, I've got to quit congratulate Ida
Speaker 4: for having her come to Jesus moment. One wonders where
Speaker 4: this attitude was when she was the chair of the
Speaker 4: ABC and was actually trying to present the same defense
Speaker 4: that Patricia Carvellis and the meule A are pushing now.
Speaker 4: But good honor for pointing out what is right now.
Speaker 5: The other thing that I.
Speaker 4: Would point out that people seem to miss all the
Speaker 4: time is that and they'll point the finger at news
Speaker 4: or they point the finger at opinion commentators like myself.
Speaker 4: I get paid to offer my opinion based on what
Speaker 4: the news is. Journalists at the ABC, under the ABC's
Speaker 4: charter are paid to deliver straight down the line journalism
Speaker 4: and balance, They don't do that. And the other thing
Speaker 4: people are going to realize is that we the taxpayer
Speaker 4: pay a billion dollars a year to the ABC to
Speaker 4: deliver that charter. Other organizations taxpayers don't have to pay
Speaker 4: for and you don't have to watch, You don't have
Speaker 4: to subscribe this guy if you don't want to. You
Speaker 4: don't have to buy the Sydney Morning Herald or the
Speaker 4: Daily Telegraph or any of these other newspapers. The ABC
Speaker 4: you've got to pay for whether you want like it
Speaker 4: or not, and we should be able to expect a
Speaker 4: higher standard from them that we don't get. But again,
Speaker 4: good on Eider for finally waking up to it.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it's a really good point. I mean, the thing
Speaker 1: that I take away from this is that resilience. It's
Speaker 1: so important. And I think what Ida Butchers is she?
Speaker 1: I don't think she's actually saying the criticism is legitimate.
Speaker 1: I think she's just saying, why do you care? And
Speaker 1: I would challenge anyone from the ABC to go and
Speaker 1: get a job at News Corp And deal with one
Speaker 1: ayota of the negative vitriol reporters at this company or
Speaker 1: this network, deal with They've got no idea, they get
Speaker 1: a tie it, they get a slightly negative tweet after
Speaker 1: an interview Darren, and then they just they lose their minds.
Speaker 5: Yeah.
Speaker 6: Look, the ABC charter actually demands the journalists and the
Speaker 6: output is impartial, and it seems like they won't really
Speaker 6: accept that, or they're unwilling to accept that. I think,
Speaker 6: you know, as you pointed out as well. Eight she
Speaker 6: left in March as a chair of placed by Kim Williams,
Speaker 6: and it was really ad mission that she's failed to
Speaker 6: deal with this entrenched culture there. But the bottom line
Speaker 6: is that other media companies have a responsibility to hold
Speaker 6: the ABC to account because it's publicly funded by the taxpayer,
Speaker 6: whether they consume the products or not.
Speaker 5: And it's such a good point.
Speaker 1: If there's inefficiencies of the Department of Health, you're going
Speaker 1: to write about it. Any statutory body should be probed.
Speaker 6: Yeah, when we were all free to you judge it
Speaker 6: on its performance, and we will and we'll continue to
Speaker 6: do that.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well said, Well, let's move on now, because the
Speaker 1: ABC is always crying poor and now we know why
Speaker 1: media watches a weekly fifteen minute show which spends about
Speaker 1: eighty percent of its time running grabs from our network
Speaker 1: when it disagrees with the arguments. The ABC website has
Speaker 1: eight people listed as working on the program, including an EP,
Speaker 1: the presenter, supervising producer, a story editor, a director to
Speaker 1: digital producers, and of course a journalist. And today we've
Speaker 1: got to look at how much at least one of
Speaker 1: these people are paid. ABC Careers is looking for a
Speaker 1: new EP, and the base salary is one hundred and
Speaker 1: seventy five one thousand dollars. Let's bring the panel back in, Steven,
Speaker 1: keep in mind that is that is the base salary,
Speaker 1: and ABC journalists do get paid a bit of a
Speaker 1: premium with their super as well, and god knows what
Speaker 1: other benefits are one hundred and seventy five thousand dollars
Speaker 1: for just one of those eight positions fifteen minutes of television.
Speaker 1: Is that a good deal for taxpayers?
Speaker 4: Jack, I just want to inform you, and I'm apologize
Speaker 4: for this, but this will be the last time I
Speaker 4: appear on your program because I'm going to go and
Speaker 4: work at the ABC. My car pass up this opportunity.
Speaker 4: Just there's a couple of things I want to point out.
Speaker 4: If I'm just read from the actual ad, we are
Speaker 4: looking for someone with exceptional journalistic talent and creative flair
Speaker 4: who will help create the next chapter of media watch
Speaker 4: a story in history. Well, at least after forty years,
Speaker 4: they're going to try. But the other thing I got
Speaker 4: here was we're looking for someone with a track work
Speaker 4: ord and leading and managing teams of journalists and content makers,
Speaker 4: fine ability to manage oversea and drive high stake stories. Well,
Speaker 4: I don't know how high stakes you can get in
Speaker 4: fifteen minutes, and somebody with independence, integrity and grace, that'll dead,
Speaker 4: said doom Jack.
Speaker 5: Seriously, Well said Darren. Your thoughts.
Speaker 6: Well, look, you know Kim Williams. Recently the ABC chair
Speaker 6: asked for an increase in funding to renew you know,
Speaker 6: particularly radio, which is really struggling at the moment. And
Speaker 6: I think through the lens of that this doesn't really
Speaker 6: strengthen his case, does it. It's they look like they've.
Speaker 1: Got remember this next time they ask for more money.
Speaker 1: Darren Steven, thank you so much for joining us. That's
Speaker 1: all the time we had for tonight.
Speaker 5: Thank you. Next is Flefty is losing it.