WEBVTT - The Media Show | 27 June 0:00:01.520 --> 0:00:06.160 This is the Media Show with Jack outing, Hello and 0:00:06.240 --> 0:00:08.960 welcome to the Media Show. Tonight, we bring you an 0:00:08.960 --> 0:00:14.680 extraordinary investigation into the ABC's diversity push, where journalists not 0:00:14.760 --> 0:00:16.800 only are being told to book talent based on their 0:00:16.920 --> 0:00:20.880 race or disability status, but they are also told to 0:00:20.960 --> 0:00:24.760 take that incredibly personal and private data and share it 0:00:24.800 --> 0:00:28.080 with their teams and talk about it, talk about your 0:00:28.160 --> 0:00:31.440 race and what it means to their coverage. And in 0:00:31.480 --> 0:00:33.760 a second we will go through the sorts of questions 0:00:33.760 --> 0:00:37.879 that ABC journalists ask each other about your race and 0:00:37.920 --> 0:00:40.159 whether you are the right race or gender for their 0:00:40.200 --> 0:00:43.080 news coverage. But before we do that, there's a little 0:00:43.120 --> 0:00:46.120 bit more. This investigation by the digital team here at 0:00:46.159 --> 0:00:49.800 Sky News used freedom of information laws to force the 0:00:49.880 --> 0:00:53.960 ABC to hand over these documents, and when the ABC did, 0:00:54.000 --> 0:00:57.680 they also turned up a letter from Justin Stevens back 0:00:57.720 --> 0:01:01.360 in twenty twenty two, powerful news boss there, where he 0:01:01.480 --> 0:01:06.039 seems to accuse his own staff of being racists themselves. 0:01:06.959 --> 0:01:10.240 He says, six months ago, I emailed you about issues 0:01:10.280 --> 0:01:14.120 around diversity and inclusion in ABC News and talked about 0:01:14.120 --> 0:01:18.920 the experiences of some of our colleagues with discriminatory, non 0:01:18.920 --> 0:01:23.520 inclusive and at times racist behavior, he wrote back in 0:01:23.560 --> 0:01:26.479 December twenty twenty two. Well, that was also written six 0:01:26.520 --> 0:01:31.440 months after Stevens apologized for supposedly a racist culture at 0:01:31.440 --> 0:01:34.840 the National Broadcaster, and if he is right, it really 0:01:34.840 --> 0:01:39.559 makes you wonder why we are funding a racist institution. Well, 0:01:39.600 --> 0:01:41.319 we have a big show tonight and joining us to 0:01:41.319 --> 0:01:44.680 discuss his contributor Angela Mollart and our very own James 0:01:44.760 --> 0:01:49.080 bolt brand New afternoon editor at skynews dot com dot AU, 0:01:49.160 --> 0:01:53.000 thank you. Very interesting letter by Justin Stevens. Very strange 0:01:53.040 --> 0:01:56.560 admission to make. So, first of all, you kind of 0:01:56.560 --> 0:02:00.520 got this self identified problem of racism at the National Broadcaster, 0:02:01.080 --> 0:02:03.800 but then you, as the news boss, as the news director, 0:02:04.320 --> 0:02:08.799 you are through an email essentially alleging that your own 0:02:08.880 --> 0:02:11.399 staff are racist or have acted in a racist way. 0:02:11.720 --> 0:02:13.840 Yeah, I think we really It opens up a lot 0:02:13.840 --> 0:02:16.000 of questions that I think we need answers from because 0:02:16.040 --> 0:02:20.440 we as taxpayers are funding the salary of all ABC employees, 0:02:20.480 --> 0:02:22.760 which means that if Justin Stevens is right and there 0:02:22.880 --> 0:02:25.720 was racism being there, we are paying for the salaries 0:02:25.720 --> 0:02:28.560 of people free to commit racism in the workplace. So 0:02:28.760 --> 0:02:30.960 I think we all need to know what happened next, 0:02:31.000 --> 0:02:33.600 what steps did Justin Stevens take, because I really hope 0:02:33.600 --> 0:02:35.840 it was more than just what seems to be a 0:02:35.880 --> 0:02:39.119 staff white email that just says, reminder, no racism, police. 0:02:38.960 --> 0:02:41.519 And reminder, we're all kind of racists. And Angel would 0:02:41.520 --> 0:02:43.560 love to bring you in. Welcome to the show, by 0:02:43.600 --> 0:02:46.639 the way, great to have you here. It's a very 0:02:46.639 --> 0:02:50.520 strange thing when you say there has been racist behavior, 0:02:50.760 --> 0:02:53.160 and this is now several years ago when this email 0:02:53.240 --> 0:02:55.840 was sent. I don't recall any emails going out saying 0:02:55.840 --> 0:02:59.600 that they've found the perpetrators, there's been punishment. Isn't this 0:02:59.720 --> 0:03:03.720 sore of mentality that if we kind of we say, oh, yes, 0:03:03.760 --> 0:03:06.840 we have seenned, therefore we can stop there and we 0:03:06.880 --> 0:03:07.400 can move on. 0:03:07.600 --> 0:03:10.639 Well, if I was journalists working for that organization, producers 0:03:10.720 --> 0:03:12.760 or whatever, I would want the facts on that. So 0:03:12.840 --> 0:03:15.160 I would be going back to Justin Stevens and asking 0:03:15.240 --> 0:03:17.840 what it was that prompted him to write that email. 0:03:17.880 --> 0:03:19.800 There has to be evidence if you're going to make 0:03:19.880 --> 0:03:23.200 that claim staff wide. If it was made staff wide, 0:03:23.280 --> 0:03:25.600 then you need to know on what basis he's made it. 0:03:25.680 --> 0:03:27.639 And now you know, I'd love you to investigation to 0:03:27.680 --> 0:03:30.040 go further and to try to find out the basis 0:03:30.080 --> 0:03:33.239 of that, because there has to be reason, because you're 0:03:33.360 --> 0:03:36.800 actually accusing your workforce. And as you said, James, we 0:03:36.840 --> 0:03:40.360 need to look at it as a taxpayer funded entity 0:03:40.680 --> 0:03:43.040 if indeed that is the case. As to the other 0:03:43.080 --> 0:03:46.640 points around the investigation, my goodness, what an extraordinary I 0:03:46.640 --> 0:03:47.640 hope we're going to get into that. 0:03:47.720 --> 0:03:48.400 We will, we. 0:03:48.320 --> 0:03:51.000 Will, we will well and right now actually so starting 0:03:51.040 --> 0:03:54.880 on this story, the ABC's own internal policy documents state 0:03:55.200 --> 0:03:58.440 that it is pursuing a talent target of fifty percent women. 0:03:58.960 --> 0:04:03.440 Seems fair enough, but fifteen percent cultural and linguistically diverse. 0:04:03.520 --> 0:04:06.040 People will get into what that means. Three point four 0:04:06.080 --> 0:04:11.400 percent indigenous and eight percent of their talent should be disabled. Now, 0:04:11.440 --> 0:04:14.160 the gender representation is easy enough, but how do you 0:04:14.240 --> 0:04:17.360 define what is culturally diverse? And how do you know 0:04:17.560 --> 0:04:20.480 what someone's race is? And this is where it gets 0:04:20.680 --> 0:04:25.119 truly nutty, the little bit disturbing. ABC journalists are told 0:04:25.360 --> 0:04:28.840 to use personal cues, including and I cannot believe that 0:04:28.880 --> 0:04:32.159 this is a direct quote from their policy document, but 0:04:32.240 --> 0:04:35.240 here we are. They said how they look and how 0:04:35.279 --> 0:04:38.760 they sound. So when you do an interview, with the ABC. 0:04:39.600 --> 0:04:42.760 Just know that they are jotting down how you look 0:04:43.120 --> 0:04:45.680 and how you sound to try and fit you in 0:04:45.720 --> 0:04:49.600 some racial box. And I have no idea how they 0:04:49.640 --> 0:04:53.280 think that you are consenting to your racial data being 0:04:53.400 --> 0:04:56.960 used like this. To me, it seems morally reprehensible and 0:04:57.080 --> 0:05:00.520 there are legitimate legal questions to raise about this. Because 0:05:00.520 --> 0:05:03.640 it doesn't stop there. That data is being used to 0:05:03.640 --> 0:05:08.400 trigger open discussions about your race in the newsroom. ABC 0:05:08.520 --> 0:05:11.400 journalists are told to share this data with the broader 0:05:11.400 --> 0:05:14.000 team and have a chat about it in daily meetings. 0:05:14.000 --> 0:05:16.800 They even built an app and drafted some very helpful 0:05:16.839 --> 0:05:21.720 questions helped stimulate good discussions. Some of those questions include, 0:05:21.720 --> 0:05:25.000 in your regular daily or weekly editorial meetings, use your 0:05:25.040 --> 0:05:28.839 data to prompt a discussion about the diversity of your stories, 0:05:29.320 --> 0:05:33.880 including how are we representing diversity in our stories? What 0:05:34.000 --> 0:05:37.040 could we do better differently next time? What are the 0:05:37.080 --> 0:05:40.800 key challenges we have? Where can we get support to 0:05:40.880 --> 0:05:45.440 overcome these challenges? And my favorite, what has been our 0:05:45.480 --> 0:05:49.320 biggest win this week slash month? A new talent, a 0:05:49.360 --> 0:05:53.680 great representative, or a really impactful story. How gross is 0:05:53.680 --> 0:05:56.520 that people who talk to the ABC being reduced to 0:05:56.600 --> 0:05:59.800 their racial identity and then trotted out for victory laps 0:06:00.160 --> 0:06:04.279 at team meetings. Imagine being described as the biggest win 0:06:04.600 --> 0:06:07.560 because the ab journalist is just stoked that you got 0:06:07.560 --> 0:06:10.719 involved with their story and you have the right skin color. 0:06:14.040 --> 0:06:16.760 So James obviously a lot to unpack there. It was 0:06:16.800 --> 0:06:20.760 a ten page policy document that they have authored, But 0:06:21.040 --> 0:06:24.200 it's the use of data. It's the subjective way in 0:06:24.200 --> 0:06:26.320 which you assess it. It's the way that they're sitting 0:06:26.360 --> 0:06:30.360 there while taxpayers are funding that they're supposed to basically 0:06:30.440 --> 0:06:33.320 just be putting the news together and investigating. 0:06:32.640 --> 0:06:34.280 And doing journalism. 0:06:34.760 --> 0:06:38.720 They're putting people in boxes, calculating data points and then 0:06:38.880 --> 0:06:42.520 forcing staff to kind of have these discussions about what 0:06:42.720 --> 0:06:46.359 race someone is to treat. It's bizarre to me. 0:06:46.279 --> 0:06:48.320 It's bizarre. There's this weird overlap. I don't know if 0:06:48.360 --> 0:06:50.880 you guys know that the handshake meme. We've got two 0:06:50.920 --> 0:06:53.920 people from different walks of life shaking hands over this 0:06:53.960 --> 0:06:56.360 one united thing. But we have this situation where it's 0:06:56.400 --> 0:06:59.880 like the modern left on this side and nineteenth cent 0:07:00.080 --> 0:07:03.080 free phrenologists and New Genesis on the other, united on 0:07:03.120 --> 0:07:05.160 the fact that we need to start tracking racial data 0:07:05.200 --> 0:07:07.760 in the workplace. It's just when you find yourself asking 0:07:07.800 --> 0:07:11.400 in a meeting is this person sounding indigenous or is 0:07:11.440 --> 0:07:12.880 this person sounding from a different background? 0:07:12.880 --> 0:07:15.280 You got to think to yourself, what am I doing here? 0:07:15.360 --> 0:07:15.480 Like? 0:07:15.520 --> 0:07:18.600 What is that question in the twenty first century world. 0:07:18.680 --> 0:07:22.560 But the other point is when you brought up the 0:07:22.560 --> 0:07:25.400 biggest diversity wins they have of the week. Again sounding 0:07:25.440 --> 0:07:27.440 like a broken record here, but we have to remember 0:07:27.560 --> 0:07:32.320 we are taxpayers funding the ABC. The only thing that 0:07:32.360 --> 0:07:34.239 should be coming out of these meetings when the ABC 0:07:34.440 --> 0:07:38.160 have them is did we deliver the best products that 0:07:38.200 --> 0:07:41.800 we just build the taxpayers for that, not any of 0:07:41.840 --> 0:07:44.000 these other things. It was was the best product delivered 0:07:44.040 --> 0:07:46.440 because that is what we deserve when we pay the salary. 0:07:46.640 --> 0:07:49.960 Yeah, I mean look the other thing as well, it's consent, right. 0:07:50.680 --> 0:07:52.720 You know, the ABC comes to me for comment all 0:07:52.720 --> 0:07:55.120 the time, you know, trying to stitch me up over 0:07:55.160 --> 0:07:57.400 this all that am I sitting there in this app 0:07:57.480 --> 0:08:00.320 with my racial data? Because one way of looking at it, 0:08:00.360 --> 0:08:03.000 you can only figure out that four percent of your 0:08:03.040 --> 0:08:07.480 guests are indigenous if you know who's not indigenous? So 0:08:08.400 --> 0:08:10.760 you have to be then storing the data of well 0:08:10.800 --> 0:08:14.880 that person that's a white woman. That's a man from Ireland. 0:08:14.920 --> 0:08:17.600 So no, that's not diverse enough for us. You have 0:08:17.680 --> 0:08:20.120 to be putting that at every single juncture otherwise the 0:08:20.200 --> 0:08:23.600 data is meaningless. And I don't know if Australians who 0:08:23.680 --> 0:08:27.040 talk to ABC journalists know that this is the practice. 0:08:27.080 --> 0:08:29.280 Well, this could be the practice right from who you 0:08:29.360 --> 0:08:32.240 interview at a fire to who you employ. So let's 0:08:32.280 --> 0:08:34.439 just say that you've got the ABC journalist has gone 0:08:34.440 --> 0:08:37.440 to a fire, They've got a quote from an Indigenous 0:08:37.559 --> 0:08:40.240 or a Lebanese person, and then they've got a quote 0:08:40.240 --> 0:08:44.400 from a Caucasian person. The Caucasian person's quote on what's 0:08:44.440 --> 0:08:47.599 happened in that fire is better, but they use the 0:08:48.000 --> 0:08:51.360 indigenous person's quote. Now, that is highly problematic and that 0:08:51.440 --> 0:08:53.520 is appalling. And I think that's what we're talking about 0:08:53.520 --> 0:08:56.839 here on an issue of news reporting, when we're talking 0:08:56.840 --> 0:09:00.800 about recruiting. Surely this is a massive hr because, as 0:09:00.800 --> 0:09:03.640 you say, it's a breach of a person's privacy. If 0:09:03.640 --> 0:09:05.280 I were to ask both of you, what do you 0:09:05.360 --> 0:09:08.000 think my nationality is? What assumptions would you make about 0:09:08.040 --> 0:09:08.720 my nationality? 0:09:08.720 --> 0:09:09.080 How we go? 0:09:09.320 --> 0:09:10.160 I wouldn't go first. 0:09:10.200 --> 0:09:12.960 I would try very much to not do that, okay, 0:09:13.000 --> 0:09:16.440 because I feel like that's a line that for me. 0:09:16.520 --> 0:09:19.439 I mean, you know, I'm quite obviously a conservative person, 0:09:19.480 --> 0:09:23.400 and I think your identity markers don't matter compared to 0:09:23.400 --> 0:09:25.560 the substance of the person or the quality conversation. 0:09:25.960 --> 0:09:28.320 I don't care, you don't care. 0:09:27.800 --> 0:09:30.240 Assumptions are naturally made. 0:09:30.280 --> 0:09:32.840 So people assumed that I am English. I'm not. I 0:09:32.880 --> 0:09:34.000 was actually born in New Zealand. 0:09:34.040 --> 0:09:35.240 So if I was sitting in front of you, and 0:09:35.400 --> 0:09:37.880 that's interesting panel and you know, I know it's not 0:09:37.920 --> 0:09:40.480 the same as race or ethnicity, but to me, that's 0:09:40.720 --> 0:09:43.880 massively problematic because it goes back to that Martha Martin 0:09:43.960 --> 0:09:46.880 Luther King quote and he said in his I have 0:09:46.920 --> 0:09:49.360 a Dream speech, I do not want my children to 0:09:49.400 --> 0:09:51.840 be judged on the color of their skin, but on 0:09:51.880 --> 0:09:53.280 the content of their character. 0:09:53.600 --> 0:09:56.760 Now, that speech was groundbreaking at the time. 0:09:56.840 --> 0:10:01.000 The ABC is deliberately contravening that by gathering this Now 0:10:01.040 --> 0:10:02.160 I know it's problematic. 0:10:02.400 --> 0:10:06.600 It's almost infantalizing as well, absolutely these communities and treating 0:10:06.600 --> 0:10:08.760 it with kid gloves, and. 0:10:08.679 --> 0:10:12.720 I know it's nuanced and textured. I was in Tasmania recently. 0:10:12.840 --> 0:10:13.960 I was at an. 0:10:13.640 --> 0:10:16.040 Indigenous food tour and the woman. The young woman was 0:10:16.040 --> 0:10:20.000 the granddaughter of the activist Michael Mansell. She was what 0:10:20.040 --> 0:10:22.760 we would call in the business incredible talent. She was 0:10:23.000 --> 0:10:25.680 brilliant speaker. She was the sort of person I would 0:10:25.720 --> 0:10:27.600 love to quote on Indigenous issues. 0:10:27.800 --> 0:10:29.840 But I got to see her in action. I got 0:10:29.840 --> 0:10:31.320 to measure her talent. 0:10:31.679 --> 0:10:33.960 What was attractive to her was to me was that 0:10:34.040 --> 0:10:36.839 she spoke so well on issues that some of us 0:10:36.840 --> 0:10:40.400 don't have a lens within. To me, that's a legitimate 0:10:40.800 --> 0:10:42.600 that's a person I will ring in the future. But 0:10:42.679 --> 0:10:45.040 that's because I saw her in action. I wasn't just 0:10:45.080 --> 0:10:48.840 observing her on a CV or on a quick interview. 0:10:48.880 --> 0:10:51.080 So I think there is nuance within it. But to 0:10:51.120 --> 0:10:52.839 do it the way they're doing it, and to pull 0:10:52.880 --> 0:10:55.440 that information and for them all to be discussing it, 0:10:55.559 --> 0:10:56.280 that's abhorrent. 0:10:56.640 --> 0:10:57.760 Yeah, completely agree. 0:10:57.880 --> 0:11:00.720 Moving on now, e Safety Commission on your even Grant 0:11:00.760 --> 0:11:04.079 is personally lobbying the Labor government to get kids banned 0:11:04.120 --> 0:11:07.000 from YouTube. So this week she stood up at the 0:11:07.080 --> 0:11:10.200 National Press Club and tried to make arguments as to 0:11:10.200 --> 0:11:14.160 why YouTube, which currently has an exemption carved out, should 0:11:14.160 --> 0:11:16.959 be banned if you are a fifteen year old person 0:11:17.200 --> 0:11:19.400 basically wanting to watch a podcast there. 0:11:20.559 --> 0:11:24.920 Well, I don't make determinations or write recommendations to the 0:11:25.000 --> 0:11:27.440 minister based on whether I keep the public on side 0:11:27.480 --> 0:11:32.560 and I follow the evidence. And my main concern with 0:11:32.600 --> 0:11:36.559 these platforms is obviously that harm's happening. But I talked 0:11:36.559 --> 0:11:42.480 about the persuasive design features. I mean YouTube has mastered 0:11:42.520 --> 0:11:49.679 those that opaque algorithms driving users down rabbit holes that 0:11:49.720 --> 0:11:51.960 they are powerless to fight against. 0:11:53.400 --> 0:11:56.320 Strange that she doesn't care whether her views on YouTube 0:11:56.320 --> 0:11:59.120 are out of step with the general public. There is 0:11:59.120 --> 0:12:00.880 a bit of an arrogance to that. And when she 0:12:01.040 --> 0:12:05.400 mentions evidence guides her decision making, she really means opinions, 0:12:05.440 --> 0:12:08.320 not evidence, because this isn't a maths equation. It isn't 0:12:08.320 --> 0:12:11.080 as simple as one plus one equals two. It is 0:12:11.200 --> 0:12:14.880 complex and highly subjective. And she slips up a few 0:12:14.880 --> 0:12:17.720 times at this point. Because the social media band was 0:12:17.760 --> 0:12:20.800 always sold to us as being about children being groomed, 0:12:21.080 --> 0:12:25.400 children being bullied online, and real present dangers. Now all 0:12:25.440 --> 0:12:29.080 of a sudden, it is about rabbit holes. Julie Etman Grant, 0:12:29.200 --> 0:12:32.480 who is a left wing activist who has publicly attacked 0:12:32.480 --> 0:12:36.080 Donald Trump before, who obviously doesn't want teenagers to be 0:12:36.080 --> 0:12:38.360 able to go down what she thinks of the wrong 0:12:38.440 --> 0:12:39.120 rabbit holes. 0:12:39.480 --> 0:12:40.840 And that would be fine. 0:12:40.720 --> 0:12:43.600 If she wasn't lobbying our government to change the laws 0:12:43.640 --> 0:12:47.640 in incredibly restrictive ways. I could not care less what 0:12:47.720 --> 0:12:51.080 this person thinks about social issues or politics, or what 0:12:51.240 --> 0:12:54.640 she deems to be a dangerous rabbit hole. That is 0:12:54.640 --> 0:12:58.240 for parents to decide for their kids. The vast majority 0:12:58.240 --> 0:13:02.120 of teachers use YouTube, and YouTube is essentially just television, 0:13:02.559 --> 0:13:04.800 but Grant wants to ban it because they might see 0:13:04.800 --> 0:13:05.800 a Joe Rogan. 0:13:05.480 --> 0:13:07.520 Clip which she disapproves of. 0:13:07.960 --> 0:13:11.040 Now, YouTube is not about end to end user interactions. 0:13:11.280 --> 0:13:13.760 It doesn't have the same child bullying issues that are 0:13:13.760 --> 0:13:17.880 on Facebook. It is TV, and Grant also cannot even 0:13:17.880 --> 0:13:20.720 be honest about what this band really is. We found 0:13:20.760 --> 0:13:23.360 her on LinkedIn this week getting in arguments with people 0:13:23.440 --> 0:13:26.640 who think the YouTube ban is stupid, and she wrote, 0:13:26.880 --> 0:13:29.160 I am not sure if you saw the transcript of 0:13:29.160 --> 0:13:32.040 my National Press Club on how we plan to approach 0:13:32.280 --> 0:13:36.679 what we are trimming the social media delay. It is 0:13:36.840 --> 0:13:39.800 not a strict prohibition that will totally cut off kids 0:13:39.880 --> 0:13:43.480 digital lifelines. Don't call it a ban. It is merely 0:13:43.559 --> 0:13:46.320 a delay. Talk about fluff and spin from someone who 0:13:46.440 --> 0:13:53.120 has no idea how these platforms work. Now, James keen 0:13:53.160 --> 0:13:56.400 to get your thoughts on this. I'm probably at odds 0:13:56.480 --> 0:13:57.920 with I think a lot of people at our own 0:13:57.920 --> 0:14:01.280 company and the social media ban its origins actually came 0:14:01.280 --> 0:14:06.920 from news court publications. But I work very closely with YouTube, 0:14:06.960 --> 0:14:08.280 I know other platform works. 0:14:08.760 --> 0:14:09.920 I think that there has. 0:14:09.760 --> 0:14:12.760 Been a false equivalence that's kind of being drawn across there, 0:14:13.280 --> 0:14:16.640 and to me, it's just remarkable that we have people 0:14:16.679 --> 0:14:21.840 in such powerful positions making such broad claims about platforms 0:14:21.840 --> 0:14:24.920 that they seem to not understand from a technical perspective. Yeah, 0:14:24.960 --> 0:14:26.800 what I thought was really good in your words there 0:14:26.960 --> 0:14:29.440 was that you identified, from the first principle the ultimate 0:14:29.520 --> 0:14:32.800 arbiter of how much HILD should be online and what. 0:14:32.760 --> 0:14:35.080 Social media platforms they should be engaging. 0:14:34.720 --> 0:14:37.480 In is the parent. It's not unelected bureaucrats. So we 0:14:37.520 --> 0:14:39.720 need to start there and we can work our way back. 0:14:40.080 --> 0:14:40.360 Now. 0:14:40.480 --> 0:14:43.360 The data is in children that learn outside of school 0:14:43.360 --> 0:14:45.760 hours fair so much better through the rest of their lives, 0:14:45.760 --> 0:14:47.680 and the children who are only learning in school hours. 0:14:47.680 --> 0:14:50.200 And in twenty twenty five YouTube is a gold mine 0:14:50.240 --> 0:14:52.360 for learning and education, and if you're cutting kids off 0:14:52.360 --> 0:14:55.880 from that, you are cutting them off from developing their interest, 0:14:55.960 --> 0:14:58.920 developing their brain, developing all the things that they could 0:14:58.920 --> 0:14:59.400 be learning. 0:14:59.480 --> 0:15:01.480 So you'rekening kids off from that. 0:15:01.520 --> 0:15:03.600 So when she says, oh, we can also customize it, 0:15:03.640 --> 0:15:05.560 you can. Parents can make it whatever they. 0:15:05.400 --> 0:15:08.040 Want exactly, And the parents should know what is my 0:15:08.120 --> 0:15:09.160 child watching on YouTube? 0:15:09.200 --> 0:15:09.760 Is that helpful? 0:15:09.840 --> 0:15:11.760 Or is that you know these weird rabbit holes that 0:15:11.800 --> 0:15:14.360 she's concerned about. That's the parents call. So when she 0:15:14.760 --> 0:15:17.520 changes the band to a delay, I would encourage her 0:15:17.560 --> 0:15:20.119 to take it one step further in this language manipulation 0:15:20.200 --> 0:15:22.040 and just say these are the amount of years I'm 0:15:22.040 --> 0:15:23.960 happy for kids to be held back from learning more 0:15:24.040 --> 0:15:25.560 like that's how she should approach Angela. 0:15:25.600 --> 0:15:28.280 What are your thoughts, I mean, the ban in general 0:15:28.280 --> 0:15:30.560 across other apps. I can definitely see that there are 0:15:30.560 --> 0:15:34.120 some legitimate aspects to it. Where I'm struggling with the 0:15:34.160 --> 0:15:37.560 YouTube thing is it's basically a broadcasting that it doesn't 0:15:37.600 --> 0:15:39.040 have the end to end user. 0:15:39.400 --> 0:15:41.760 I don't think it would actually come under the proposed 0:15:41.800 --> 0:15:44.720 legislation because it is not a two sided platform, as 0:15:44.720 --> 0:15:48.400 you've alluded to your in your editorial. There the things 0:15:48.400 --> 0:15:51.080 that come under it are things like snapchat, TikTok, things 0:15:51.080 --> 0:15:53.560 where there is interactions between people. And I know this 0:15:53.640 --> 0:15:56.400 because I've just done a deep dive into AI companions. 0:15:56.680 --> 0:15:56.840 Now. 0:15:56.880 --> 0:16:01.560 AI companions are again like YouTube, they are web based platform, 0:16:01.640 --> 0:16:05.120 so they too will not come under the proposed legislation. 0:16:05.280 --> 0:16:07.760 So I'm not worried about that exactly. 0:16:07.800 --> 0:16:10.480 And that's what I was about to say is that, yes, look, 0:16:10.480 --> 0:16:12.960 I am a fan of the social media ban. As 0:16:12.960 --> 0:16:16.240 a parent who struggled through my children's teenage years, I 0:16:16.320 --> 0:16:17.120 want that tribe. 0:16:17.160 --> 0:16:17.520 I want that. 0:16:17.560 --> 0:16:19.480 Legislation in place so I can say point to it 0:16:19.560 --> 0:16:21.480 and say no, other parents are letting you know, my 0:16:21.560 --> 0:16:23.720 fifteen year old, you can't have that because everyone else 0:16:23.760 --> 0:16:26.240 can't have it either. That is a help to parents, 0:16:26.360 --> 0:16:28.600 but it has to be targeted and it has to 0:16:28.640 --> 0:16:30.360 be precise about what it's going. 0:16:30.160 --> 0:16:32.400 To capture within it. Where is the biggest time. It's 0:16:32.400 --> 0:16:33.960 with bullying, it's with suicide. 0:16:34.000 --> 0:16:37.880 AI companions, as we know, are really really problematic, they 0:16:37.920 --> 0:16:40.560 don't fall under this. I'm really surprised that inmand Grant 0:16:40.880 --> 0:16:43.760 is not focusing on where she can create the best 0:16:43.800 --> 0:16:46.600 effect and drive through this policy in an effective way. 0:16:46.600 --> 0:16:48.680 We can't even get facial recognition right at the moment, 0:16:48.720 --> 0:16:51.760 so there's a long way to go. Let's be really 0:16:51.880 --> 0:16:55.560 clear and really informed about what this legislation might cover. 0:16:55.640 --> 0:16:57.040 I don't think YouTube falls under that. 0:16:57.400 --> 0:16:59.560 I agree, Angela Molla, Thank you so much. James Bolt 0:16:59.560 --> 0:17:02.560 really waiting to take a quick break. But when we return, 0:17:02.880 --> 0:17:06.160 how the media repeatedly lied when covering around this week 0:17:13.720 --> 0:17:16.440 and welcome back to Stars and Gripes, where we expose 0:17:16.560 --> 0:17:20.679 activist journalists who distort the news for political gain. And 0:17:20.760 --> 0:17:22.119 it has been a big week of that. 0:17:23.160 --> 0:17:26.840 So Donald Trump and all of his magaminions, many of 0:17:26.840 --> 0:17:29.480 his magaminions, I guess I should say, have been lying 0:17:29.520 --> 0:17:30.760 through the country for days. 0:17:31.320 --> 0:17:32.040 They have lied to. 0:17:32.000 --> 0:17:35.680 All of us over and over and over again. 0:17:38.280 --> 0:17:41.840 Iran's key nuclear and Richmond facilities have been completely and 0:17:41.880 --> 0:17:43.359 totally obliterated. 0:17:43.640 --> 0:17:46.800 Those pilot hit their targets and targets were obliterated. 0:17:47.119 --> 0:17:49.240 We have obliterated the Iradian nuclear program. 0:17:49.400 --> 0:17:53.560 We are confident, yes, that Iran's nuclear sites were completely 0:17:53.600 --> 0:17:54.760 and totally obliterated. 0:17:56.359 --> 0:18:00.080 Iran's nuclear program has been completely and totally obliterated. I 0:18:00.160 --> 0:18:02.480 feel like maybe they had a note card that's obliterated 0:18:02.520 --> 0:18:03.879 on it and they gave it to all those people 0:18:03.880 --> 0:18:05.800 and made them say it. Who knows, but that was 0:18:05.840 --> 0:18:08.080 the message from the Trump administration. 0:18:09.400 --> 0:18:12.919 Well that was MSNBC host Jen Saki complaining that the 0:18:12.960 --> 0:18:16.000 Iran strikes were not damaging enough. And I find this 0:18:16.080 --> 0:18:21.119 line truly extraordinary. These journalists spend days and days suggesting 0:18:21.359 --> 0:18:24.560 that Iran was not a threat. They were misquoting Tulsi 0:18:24.600 --> 0:18:27.760 Gabbett to suggest that Iran wasn't making yukes, even though 0:18:27.840 --> 0:18:31.080 it is an indisputable fact that they enriched hundreds and 0:18:31.160 --> 0:18:34.800 hundreds of kilos of uranium to sixty percent when all 0:18:34.880 --> 0:18:37.440 they need for energy is actually in the single digits. 0:18:37.760 --> 0:18:41.679 The only possible functional purpose for that enrichment figure, which Iran, 0:18:41.800 --> 0:18:45.639 by the way, openly reports themselves, the only possible reason 0:18:46.240 --> 0:18:49.280 was to build a nuke. Now, anyone who says different 0:18:49.480 --> 0:18:52.560 is either stupid or lying right to your face. And 0:18:52.640 --> 0:18:54.920 if you watch this show regularly, you know that is 0:18:54.960 --> 0:18:58.840 a huge subsection of our media. So what was MSNBC 0:18:59.040 --> 0:19:03.800 saying immediately after Trump hit these nuclear facilities? Are you 0:19:03.840 --> 0:19:07.119 aware sort of any new intelligence that may have pushed 0:19:07.119 --> 0:19:09.560 the White House into action right now. 0:19:10.720 --> 0:19:12.880 No, I don't think there's any new intelligence. I think 0:19:12.960 --> 0:19:16.000 the President received an enormous amount of pressure from Prime 0:19:16.040 --> 0:19:19.560 Minister Netyahu in Israel, and also I think the President 0:19:19.640 --> 0:19:23.280 felt that Israel was winning and he wanted to get 0:19:23.280 --> 0:19:24.920 in on that, and he wanted to be part of 0:19:25.000 --> 0:19:28.359 this successful strategy. You remember when this started, President Trump, 0:19:29.240 --> 0:19:32.159 by all reports, had asked Israel not to launch the 0:19:32.200 --> 0:19:33.959 attack that they launched on Iran. 0:19:34.440 --> 0:19:35.119 He didn't want to. 0:19:35.119 --> 0:19:36.600 Go there, and then he wound up there. 0:19:36.640 --> 0:19:39.520 It sounds to me like he got sort of dragged 0:19:39.560 --> 0:19:42.640 into this by what happens a lot of times. Yes, 0:19:42.680 --> 0:19:45.399 we have civilian control of the military, but the military 0:19:45.480 --> 0:19:48.159 will come and tell the civilian control if we just 0:19:48.200 --> 0:19:51.240 did this, we can win, This will work, there won't 0:19:51.280 --> 0:19:53.960 be any problems. And we've gotten in a lot of 0:19:54.000 --> 0:19:56.920 trouble taking that advice in a whole number of different places. 0:19:56.960 --> 0:19:59.480 And I'm pretty confident the President just got us in 0:19:59.520 --> 0:20:00.840 a lot of tr in Iran. 0:20:02.320 --> 0:20:05.800 They pivoted from Trump had no reason to hit Iran 0:20:06.160 --> 0:20:09.639 to Trump didn't hit Iran hard enough in just a 0:20:09.680 --> 0:20:15.280