Speaker 1: This is the Media Show with Jack outing, Hello and
Speaker 1: welcome to the Media Show. Tonight, we bring you an
Speaker 1: extraordinary investigation into the ABC's diversity push, where journalists not
Speaker 1: only are being told to book talent based on their
Speaker 1: race or disability status, but they are also told to
Speaker 1: take that incredibly personal and private data and share it
Speaker 1: with their teams and talk about it, talk about your
Speaker 1: race and what it means to their coverage. And in
Speaker 1: a second we will go through the sorts of questions
Speaker 1: that ABC journalists ask each other about your race and
Speaker 1: whether you are the right race or gender for their
Speaker 1: news coverage. But before we do that, there's a little
Speaker 1: bit more. This investigation by the digital team here at
Speaker 1: Sky News used freedom of information laws to force the
Speaker 1: ABC to hand over these documents, and when the ABC did,
Speaker 1: they also turned up a letter from Justin Stevens back
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty two, powerful news boss there, where he
Speaker 1: seems to accuse his own staff of being racists themselves.
Speaker 1: He says, six months ago, I emailed you about issues
Speaker 1: around diversity and inclusion in ABC News and talked about
Speaker 1: the experiences of some of our colleagues with discriminatory, non
Speaker 1: inclusive and at times racist behavior, he wrote back in
Speaker 1: December twenty twenty two. Well, that was also written six
Speaker 1: months after Stevens apologized for supposedly a racist culture at
Speaker 1: the National Broadcaster, and if he is right, it really
Speaker 1: makes you wonder why we are funding a racist institution. Well,
Speaker 1: we have a big show tonight and joining us to
Speaker 1: discuss his contributor Angela Mollart and our very own James
Speaker 1: bolt brand New afternoon editor at skynews dot com dot AU,
Speaker 1: thank you. Very interesting letter by Justin Stevens. Very strange
Speaker 1: admission to make. So, first of all, you kind of
Speaker 1: got this self identified problem of racism at the National Broadcaster,
Speaker 1: but then you, as the news boss, as the news director,
Speaker 1: you are through an email essentially alleging that your own
Speaker 1: staff are racist or have acted in a racist way.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think we really It opens up a lot
Speaker 2: of questions that I think we need answers from because
Speaker 2: we as taxpayers are funding the salary of all ABC employees,
Speaker 2: which means that if Justin Stevens is right and there
Speaker 2: was racism being there, we are paying for the salaries
Speaker 2: of people free to commit racism in the workplace. So
Speaker 2: I think we all need to know what happened next,
Speaker 2: what steps did Justin Stevens take, because I really hope
Speaker 2: it was more than just what seems to be a
Speaker 2: staff white email that just says, reminder, no racism, police.
Speaker 1: And reminder, we're all kind of racists. And Angel would
Speaker 1: love to bring you in. Welcome to the show, by
Speaker 1: the way, great to have you here. It's a very
Speaker 1: strange thing when you say there has been racist behavior,
Speaker 1: and this is now several years ago when this email
Speaker 1: was sent. I don't recall any emails going out saying
Speaker 1: that they've found the perpetrators, there's been punishment. Isn't this
Speaker 1: sore of mentality that if we kind of we say, oh, yes,
Speaker 1: we have seenned, therefore we can stop there and we
Speaker 1: can move on.
Speaker 3: Well, if I was journalists working for that organization, producers
Speaker 3: or whatever, I would want the facts on that. So
Speaker 3: I would be going back to Justin Stevens and asking
Speaker 3: what it was that prompted him to write that email.
Speaker 3: There has to be evidence if you're going to make
Speaker 3: that claim staff wide. If it was made staff wide,
Speaker 3: then you need to know on what basis he's made it.
Speaker 3: And now you know, I'd love you to investigation to
Speaker 3: go further and to try to find out the basis
Speaker 3: of that, because there has to be reason, because you're
Speaker 3: actually accusing your workforce. And as you said, James, we
Speaker 3: need to look at it as a taxpayer funded entity
Speaker 3: if indeed that is the case. As to the other
Speaker 3: points around the investigation, my goodness, what an extraordinary I
Speaker 3: hope we're going to get into that.
Speaker 4: We will, we.
Speaker 1: Will, we will well and right now actually so starting
Speaker 1: on this story, the ABC's own internal policy documents state
Speaker 1: that it is pursuing a talent target of fifty percent women.
Speaker 1: Seems fair enough, but fifteen percent cultural and linguistically diverse.
Speaker 1: People will get into what that means. Three point four
Speaker 1: percent indigenous and eight percent of their talent should be disabled. Now,
Speaker 1: the gender representation is easy enough, but how do you
Speaker 1: define what is culturally diverse? And how do you know
Speaker 1: what someone's race is? And this is where it gets
Speaker 1: truly nutty, the little bit disturbing. ABC journalists are told
Speaker 1: to use personal cues, including and I cannot believe that
Speaker 1: this is a direct quote from their policy document, but
Speaker 1: here we are. They said how they look and how
Speaker 1: they sound. So when you do an interview, with the ABC.
Speaker 1: Just know that they are jotting down how you look
Speaker 1: and how you sound to try and fit you in
Speaker 1: some racial box. And I have no idea how they
Speaker 1: think that you are consenting to your racial data being
Speaker 1: used like this. To me, it seems morally reprehensible and
Speaker 1: there are legitimate legal questions to raise about this. Because
Speaker 1: it doesn't stop there. That data is being used to
Speaker 1: trigger open discussions about your race in the newsroom. ABC
Speaker 1: journalists are told to share this data with the broader
Speaker 1: team and have a chat about it in daily meetings.
Speaker 1: They even built an app and drafted some very helpful
Speaker 1: questions helped stimulate good discussions. Some of those questions include,
Speaker 1: in your regular daily or weekly editorial meetings, use your
Speaker 1: data to prompt a discussion about the diversity of your stories,
Speaker 1: including how are we representing diversity in our stories? What
Speaker 1: could we do better differently next time? What are the
Speaker 1: key challenges we have? Where can we get support to
Speaker 1: overcome these challenges? And my favorite, what has been our
Speaker 1: biggest win this week slash month? A new talent, a
Speaker 1: great representative, or a really impactful story. How gross is
Speaker 1: that people who talk to the ABC being reduced to
Speaker 1: their racial identity and then trotted out for victory laps
Speaker 1: at team meetings. Imagine being described as the biggest win
Speaker 1: because the ab journalist is just stoked that you got
Speaker 1: involved with their story and you have the right skin color.
Speaker 1: So James obviously a lot to unpack there. It was
Speaker 1: a ten page policy document that they have authored, But
Speaker 1: it's the use of data. It's the subjective way in
Speaker 1: which you assess it. It's the way that they're sitting
Speaker 1: there while taxpayers are funding that they're supposed to basically
Speaker 1: just be putting the news together and investigating.
Speaker 4: And doing journalism.
Speaker 1: They're putting people in boxes, calculating data points and then
Speaker 1: forcing staff to kind of have these discussions about what
Speaker 1: race someone is to treat. It's bizarre to me.
Speaker 2: It's bizarre. There's this weird overlap. I don't know if
Speaker 2: you guys know that the handshake meme. We've got two
Speaker 2: people from different walks of life shaking hands over this
Speaker 2: one united thing. But we have this situation where it's
Speaker 2: like the modern left on this side and nineteenth cent
Speaker 2: free phrenologists and New Genesis on the other, united on
Speaker 2: the fact that we need to start tracking racial data
Speaker 2: in the workplace. It's just when you find yourself asking
Speaker 2: in a meeting is this person sounding indigenous or is
Speaker 2: this person sounding from a different background?
Speaker 5: You got to think to yourself, what am I doing here?
Speaker 3: Like?
Speaker 2: What is that question in the twenty first century world.
Speaker 2: But the other point is when you brought up the
Speaker 2: biggest diversity wins they have of the week. Again sounding
Speaker 2: like a broken record here, but we have to remember
Speaker 2: we are taxpayers funding the ABC. The only thing that
Speaker 2: should be coming out of these meetings when the ABC
Speaker 2: have them is did we deliver the best products that
Speaker 2: we just build the taxpayers for that, not any of
Speaker 2: these other things. It was was the best product delivered
Speaker 2: because that is what we deserve when we pay the salary.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean look the other thing as well, it's consent, right.
Speaker 1: You know, the ABC comes to me for comment all
Speaker 1: the time, you know, trying to stitch me up over
Speaker 1: this all that am I sitting there in this app
Speaker 1: with my racial data? Because one way of looking at it,
Speaker 1: you can only figure out that four percent of your
Speaker 1: guests are indigenous if you know who's not indigenous? So
Speaker 1: you have to be then storing the data of well
Speaker 1: that person that's a white woman. That's a man from Ireland.
Speaker 1: So no, that's not diverse enough for us. You have
Speaker 1: to be putting that at every single juncture otherwise the
Speaker 1: data is meaningless. And I don't know if Australians who
Speaker 1: talk to ABC journalists know that this is the practice.
Speaker 3: Well, this could be the practice right from who you
Speaker 3: interview at a fire to who you employ. So let's
Speaker 3: just say that you've got the ABC journalist has gone
Speaker 3: to a fire, They've got a quote from an Indigenous
Speaker 3: or a Lebanese person, and then they've got a quote
Speaker 3: from a Caucasian person. The Caucasian person's quote on what's
Speaker 3: happened in that fire is better, but they use the
Speaker 3: indigenous person's quote. Now, that is highly problematic and that
Speaker 3: is appalling. And I think that's what we're talking about
Speaker 3: here on an issue of news reporting, when we're talking
Speaker 3: about recruiting. Surely this is a massive hr because, as
Speaker 3: you say, it's a breach of a person's privacy. If
Speaker 3: I were to ask both of you, what do you
Speaker 3: think my nationality is? What assumptions would you make about
Speaker 3: my nationality?
Speaker 6: How we go?
Speaker 5: I wouldn't go first.
Speaker 1: I would try very much to not do that, okay,
Speaker 1: because I feel like that's a line that for me.
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, I'm quite obviously a conservative person,
Speaker 1: and I think your identity markers don't matter compared to
Speaker 1: the substance of the person or the quality conversation.
Speaker 6: I don't care, you don't care.
Speaker 3: Assumptions are naturally made.
Speaker 6: So people assumed that I am English. I'm not. I
Speaker 6: was actually born in New Zealand.
Speaker 3: So if I was sitting in front of you, and
Speaker 3: that's interesting panel and you know, I know it's not
Speaker 3: the same as race or ethnicity, but to me, that's
Speaker 3: massively problematic because it goes back to that Martha Martin
Speaker 3: Luther King quote and he said in his I have
Speaker 3: a Dream speech, I do not want my children to
Speaker 3: be judged on the color of their skin, but on
Speaker 3: the content of their character.
Speaker 6: Now, that speech was groundbreaking at the time.
Speaker 3: The ABC is deliberately contravening that by gathering this Now
Speaker 3: I know it's problematic.
Speaker 1: It's almost infantalizing as well, absolutely these communities and treating
Speaker 1: it with kid gloves, and.
Speaker 3: I know it's nuanced and textured. I was in Tasmania recently.
Speaker 6: I was at an.
Speaker 3: Indigenous food tour and the woman. The young woman was
Speaker 3: the granddaughter of the activist Michael Mansell. She was what
Speaker 3: we would call in the business incredible talent. She was
Speaker 3: brilliant speaker. She was the sort of person I would
Speaker 3: love to quote on Indigenous issues.
Speaker 6: But I got to see her in action. I got
Speaker 6: to measure her talent.
Speaker 3: What was attractive to her was to me was that
Speaker 3: she spoke so well on issues that some of us
Speaker 3: don't have a lens within. To me, that's a legitimate
Speaker 3: that's a person I will ring in the future. But
Speaker 3: that's because I saw her in action. I wasn't just
Speaker 3: observing her on a CV or on a quick interview.
Speaker 3: So I think there is nuance within it. But to
Speaker 3: do it the way they're doing it, and to pull
Speaker 3: that information and for them all to be discussing it,
Speaker 3: that's abhorrent.
Speaker 4: Yeah, completely agree.
Speaker 1: Moving on now, e Safety Commission on your even Grant
Speaker 1: is personally lobbying the Labor government to get kids banned
Speaker 1: from YouTube. So this week she stood up at the
Speaker 1: National Press Club and tried to make arguments as to
Speaker 1: why YouTube, which currently has an exemption carved out, should
Speaker 1: be banned if you are a fifteen year old person
Speaker 1: basically wanting to watch a podcast there.
Speaker 7: Well, I don't make determinations or write recommendations to the
Speaker 7: minister based on whether I keep the public on side
Speaker 7: and I follow the evidence. And my main concern with
Speaker 7: these platforms is obviously that harm's happening. But I talked
Speaker 7: about the persuasive design features. I mean YouTube has mastered
Speaker 7: those that opaque algorithms driving users down rabbit holes that
Speaker 7: they are powerless to fight against.
Speaker 1: Strange that she doesn't care whether her views on YouTube
Speaker 1: are out of step with the general public. There is
Speaker 1: a bit of an arrogance to that. And when she
Speaker 1: mentions evidence guides her decision making, she really means opinions,
Speaker 1: not evidence, because this isn't a maths equation. It isn't
Speaker 1: as simple as one plus one equals two. It is
Speaker 1: complex and highly subjective. And she slips up a few
Speaker 1: times at this point. Because the social media band was
Speaker 1: always sold to us as being about children being groomed,
Speaker 1: children being bullied online, and real present dangers. Now all
Speaker 1: of a sudden, it is about rabbit holes. Julie Etman Grant,
Speaker 1: who is a left wing activist who has publicly attacked
Speaker 1: Donald Trump before, who obviously doesn't want teenagers to be
Speaker 1: able to go down what she thinks of the wrong
Speaker 1: rabbit holes.
Speaker 4: And that would be fine.
Speaker 1: If she wasn't lobbying our government to change the laws
Speaker 1: in incredibly restrictive ways. I could not care less what
Speaker 1: this person thinks about social issues or politics, or what
Speaker 1: she deems to be a dangerous rabbit hole. That is
Speaker 1: for parents to decide for their kids. The vast majority
Speaker 1: of teachers use YouTube, and YouTube is essentially just television,
Speaker 1: but Grant wants to ban it because they might see
Speaker 1: a Joe Rogan.
Speaker 4: Clip which she disapproves of.
Speaker 1: Now, YouTube is not about end to end user interactions.
Speaker 1: It doesn't have the same child bullying issues that are
Speaker 1: on Facebook. It is TV, and Grant also cannot even
Speaker 1: be honest about what this band really is. We found
Speaker 1: her on LinkedIn this week getting in arguments with people
Speaker 1: who think the YouTube ban is stupid, and she wrote,
Speaker 1: I am not sure if you saw the transcript of
Speaker 1: my National Press Club on how we plan to approach
Speaker 1: what we are trimming the social media delay. It is
Speaker 1: not a strict prohibition that will totally cut off kids
Speaker 1: digital lifelines. Don't call it a ban. It is merely
Speaker 1: a delay. Talk about fluff and spin from someone who
Speaker 1: has no idea how these platforms work. Now, James keen
Speaker 1: to get your thoughts on this. I'm probably at odds
Speaker 1: with I think a lot of people at our own
Speaker 1: company and the social media ban its origins actually came
Speaker 1: from news court publications. But I work very closely with YouTube,
Speaker 1: I know other platform works.
Speaker 4: I think that there has.
Speaker 1: Been a false equivalence that's kind of being drawn across there,
Speaker 1: and to me, it's just remarkable that we have people
Speaker 1: in such powerful positions making such broad claims about platforms
Speaker 1: that they seem to not understand from a technical perspective. Yeah,
Speaker 1: what I thought was really good in your words there
Speaker 1: was that you identified, from the first principle the ultimate
Speaker 1: arbiter of how much HILD should be online and what.
Speaker 5: Social media platforms they should be engaging.
Speaker 2: In is the parent. It's not unelected bureaucrats. So we
Speaker 2: need to start there and we can work our way back.
Speaker 5: Now.
Speaker 2: The data is in children that learn outside of school
Speaker 2: hours fair so much better through the rest of their lives,
Speaker 2: and the children who are only learning in school hours.
Speaker 2: And in twenty twenty five YouTube is a gold mine
Speaker 2: for learning and education, and if you're cutting kids off
Speaker 2: from that, you are cutting them off from developing their interest,
Speaker 2: developing their brain, developing all the things that they could
Speaker 2: be learning.
Speaker 5: So you'rekening kids off from that.
Speaker 1: So when she says, oh, we can also customize it,
Speaker 1: you can. Parents can make it whatever they.
Speaker 2: Want exactly, And the parents should know what is my
Speaker 2: child watching on YouTube?
Speaker 5: Is that helpful?
Speaker 2: Or is that you know these weird rabbit holes that
Speaker 2: she's concerned about. That's the parents call. So when she
Speaker 2: changes the band to a delay, I would encourage her
Speaker 2: to take it one step further in this language manipulation
Speaker 2: and just say these are the amount of years I'm
Speaker 2: happy for kids to be held back from learning more
Speaker 2: like that's how she should approach Angela.
Speaker 1: What are your thoughts, I mean, the ban in general
Speaker 1: across other apps. I can definitely see that there are
Speaker 1: some legitimate aspects to it. Where I'm struggling with the
Speaker 1: YouTube thing is it's basically a broadcasting that it doesn't
Speaker 1: have the end to end user.
Speaker 3: I don't think it would actually come under the proposed
Speaker 3: legislation because it is not a two sided platform, as
Speaker 3: you've alluded to your in your editorial. There the things
Speaker 3: that come under it are things like snapchat, TikTok, things
Speaker 3: where there is interactions between people. And I know this
Speaker 3: because I've just done a deep dive into AI companions.
Speaker 6: Now.
Speaker 3: AI companions are again like YouTube, they are web based platform,
Speaker 3: so they too will not come under the proposed legislation.
Speaker 4: So I'm not worried about that exactly.
Speaker 3: And that's what I was about to say is that, yes, look,
Speaker 3: I am a fan of the social media ban. As
Speaker 3: a parent who struggled through my children's teenage years, I
Speaker 3: want that tribe.
Speaker 6: I want that.
Speaker 3: Legislation in place so I can say point to it
Speaker 3: and say no, other parents are letting you know, my
Speaker 3: fifteen year old, you can't have that because everyone else
Speaker 3: can't have it either. That is a help to parents,
Speaker 3: but it has to be targeted and it has to
Speaker 3: be precise about what it's going.
Speaker 6: To capture within it. Where is the biggest time. It's
Speaker 6: with bullying, it's with suicide.
Speaker 3: AI companions, as we know, are really really problematic, they
Speaker 3: don't fall under this. I'm really surprised that inmand Grant
Speaker 3: is not focusing on where she can create the best
Speaker 3: effect and drive through this policy in an effective way.
Speaker 3: We can't even get facial recognition right at the moment,
Speaker 3: so there's a long way to go. Let's be really
Speaker 3: clear and really informed about what this legislation might cover.
Speaker 3: I don't think YouTube falls under that.
Speaker 1: I agree, Angela Molla, Thank you so much. James Bolt
Speaker 1: really waiting to take a quick break. But when we return,
Speaker 1: how the media repeatedly lied when covering around this week
Speaker 1: and welcome back to Stars and Gripes, where we expose
Speaker 1: activist journalists who distort the news for political gain. And
Speaker 1: it has been a big week of that.
Speaker 8: So Donald Trump and all of his magaminions, many of
Speaker 8: his magaminions, I guess I should say, have been lying
Speaker 8: through the country for days.
Speaker 4: They have lied to.
Speaker 8: All of us over and over and over again.
Speaker 9: Iran's key nuclear and Richmond facilities have been completely and
Speaker 9: totally obliterated.
Speaker 1: Those pilot hit their targets and targets were obliterated.
Speaker 4: We have obliterated the Iradian nuclear program.
Speaker 10: We are confident, yes, that Iran's nuclear sites were completely
Speaker 10: and totally obliterated.
Speaker 8: Iran's nuclear program has been completely and totally obliterated. I
Speaker 8: feel like maybe they had a note card that's obliterated
Speaker 8: on it and they gave it to all those people
Speaker 8: and made them say it. Who knows, but that was
Speaker 8: the message from the Trump administration.
Speaker 1: Well that was MSNBC host Jen Saki complaining that the
Speaker 1: Iran strikes were not damaging enough. And I find this
Speaker 1: line truly extraordinary. These journalists spend days and days suggesting
Speaker 1: that Iran was not a threat. They were misquoting Tulsi
Speaker 1: Gabbett to suggest that Iran wasn't making yukes, even though
Speaker 1: it is an indisputable fact that they enriched hundreds and
Speaker 1: hundreds of kilos of uranium to sixty percent when all
Speaker 1: they need for energy is actually in the single digits.
Speaker 1: The only possible functional purpose for that enrichment figure, which Iran,
Speaker 1: by the way, openly reports themselves, the only possible reason
Speaker 1: was to build a nuke. Now, anyone who says different
Speaker 1: is either stupid or lying right to your face. And
Speaker 1: if you watch this show regularly, you know that is
Speaker 1: a huge subsection of our media. So what was MSNBC
Speaker 1: saying immediately after Trump hit these nuclear facilities? Are you
Speaker 1: aware sort of any new intelligence that may have pushed
Speaker 1: the White House into action right now.
Speaker 11: No, I don't think there's any new intelligence. I think
Speaker 11: the President received an enormous amount of pressure from Prime
Speaker 11: Minister Netyahu in Israel, and also I think the President
Speaker 11: felt that Israel was winning and he wanted to get
Speaker 11: in on that, and he wanted to be part of
Speaker 11: this successful strategy. You remember when this started, President Trump,
Speaker 11: by all reports, had asked Israel not to launch the
Speaker 11: attack that they launched on Iran.
Speaker 4: He didn't want to.
Speaker 12: Go there, and then he wound up there.
Speaker 11: It sounds to me like he got sort of dragged
Speaker 11: into this by what happens a lot of times. Yes,
Speaker 11: we have civilian control of the military, but the military
Speaker 11: will come and tell the civilian control if we just
Speaker 11: did this, we can win, This will work, there won't
Speaker 11: be any problems. And we've gotten in a lot of
Speaker 11: trouble taking that advice in a whole number of different places.
Speaker 11: And I'm pretty confident the President just got us in
Speaker 11: a lot of tr in Iran.
Speaker 1: They pivoted from Trump had no reason to hit Iran
Speaker 1: to Trump didn't hit Iran hard enough in just a
Speaker 1: matter of hours. Well, joining me now is Adam B.
Speaker 4: Coleman.
Speaker 1: Commentator and author of a new book, The Children We
Speaker 1: Left Behind.
Speaker 4: Adam, How are you.
Speaker 12: I'm doing well, Thank you.
Speaker 4: Well, Welcome to the show.
Speaker 1: It's been extraordinary how the media has covered this, how
Speaker 1: they've just pivoted at every opportunity to find the line
Speaker 1: that is I think most critical in my opinion, to
Speaker 1: Donald Trump and his administration.
Speaker 4: But what have you made of the media coverage?
Speaker 10: Much is what they've been doing for years. They have
Speaker 10: no particular principle. The only thing that they care about
Speaker 10: is going and doing the opposite of what.
Speaker 12: Donald Trump wants.
Speaker 10: Hunter, contradicting what he says, trying to disprove everything that
Speaker 10: he claims, and going on the long side of every issue.
Speaker 12: For the most part, the American public.
Speaker 10: Understands the danger of Iran, and then when they're trying
Speaker 10: to spend this as one they don't have any nukes
Speaker 10: and why would they ever want nukes to Well.
Speaker 12: They just didn't destroy it.
Speaker 10: It's just this constant You use the word pivot, and
Speaker 10: I was going to say that as well, this constant
Speaker 10: pivot to try to discredit the president, and Pete Hechseth
Speaker 10: mentioned that before as well.
Speaker 1: Yeah, definitely, I feel like it really leaves the media
Speaker 1: so vulnerable at him because he forces them to go
Speaker 1: into positions it's probably not very natural. But look, moving on,
Speaker 1: as you mentioned, staying on the conflict in the Middle East,
Speaker 1: I wasn't the only one realizing just how insane the
Speaker 1: media reporting had become.
Speaker 13: Because you, and I mean specifically you the press, because
Speaker 13: you cheer against Trump so hard. It's like in your
Speaker 13: DNA and in your blood, cheer against Trump because you
Speaker 13: want him not to be successful so bad you have
Speaker 13: to cheer against the efficacy of these strikes.
Speaker 4: Adam.
Speaker 1: He was saying everything that I've been thinking this entire
Speaker 1: week of the coverage. There are a lot of journalists
Speaker 1: there that did look a bit awkward. Gee, they get
Speaker 1: offended when somebody calls them out, don't they?
Speaker 10: Yeah, Because for the most part, these people live in
Speaker 10: their own bubble. They're not used to hearing a counteractive
Speaker 10: point are They're not used to hearing someone actually challenge
Speaker 10: their ideas, and they're especially not used to being called out.
Speaker 10: And these are very elitist, egotistical people, and so the
Speaker 10: last thing they want to hear is someone actually call
Speaker 10: them on their stuff.
Speaker 12: And he is absolutely right. They're not trying to be unbiased.
Speaker 12: They're overtly biased.
Speaker 10: They're only looking to find some sort of point that
Speaker 10: shows that either Trump the Trump administration is incompetent.
Speaker 12: They're wrong, they're lying. You know, one will do. But
Speaker 12: their only a goal.
Speaker 10: Is to go against Trump about advocating for the United States,
Speaker 10: the prosperity of the Middle East.
Speaker 12: It's not about any of that stuff.
Speaker 10: And that's where the American public sees that our media
Speaker 10: has only one interest and it's not about the American citizen.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and I look at it. I feel like you
Speaker 1: must have contempt for your own audience. And people aren't stupid.
Speaker 1: And now we've got access to all sorts of different media,
Speaker 1: so we know what's happening.
Speaker 4: But moving on.
Speaker 1: It was awkward for CNN's Jake Tappa when he did
Speaker 1: a lengthy monologue this week claiming that Trump had failed
Speaker 1: to do any long lasting damage to a run's nuclear program,
Speaker 1: only to have his own guests live on air present
Speaker 1: evidence to the contrary. Now, let's start with Tappa's editorial.
Speaker 9: An initial intelligence assessment that said that the US strikes
Speaker 9: did not destroy the core components of the country's nuclear
Speaker 9: program and likely only set it back by months. It
Speaker 9: is of course possible that at some point, after more
Speaker 9: intelligence assessments are completed, the president's claims of total obliteration
Speaker 9: of the entire program could bear out to be true.
Speaker 9: But so much right now remains unknown. We still do
Speaker 9: not know what is underneath all the rubble at these
Speaker 9: bombed out sites. Has everything been completely destroyed?
Speaker 5: Now?
Speaker 9: CNN was first report that one early DIA or Defense
Speaker 9: Intelligence Agency assessment suggested that the US military strikes on
Speaker 9: Iran this weekend did not completely destroy the core components
Speaker 9: of Iran's nuclear program.
Speaker 1: Okay, first of all, I have to point out that
Speaker 1: these people did not even think that Iran had a
Speaker 1: nuclear weapons program a few days ago. Now they think
Speaker 1: that the nuclear program was so widespread in advanced that
Speaker 1: Iran has managed to hide uranium and can now get
Speaker 1: a nuke out the door in months. It is truly
Speaker 1: crazy stuff, But it gets better. This is how tappa's
Speaker 1: own on air expert responded.
Speaker 9: What are you hearing from your Israeli source is about
Speaker 9: the assessment of the damage.
Speaker 5: Four days after.
Speaker 14: I've to tell you, a scenior Israeli intelligence official told
Speaker 14: me today that overall, other than the fact that he's
Speaker 14: using the word obliterated. Overall, the Israeli intelligence assessment shows
Speaker 14: that the reality is much closer to where Trump says
Speaker 14: it is than to where the initial DIA report said
Speaker 14: it was. And obviously a few days passed since that
Speaker 14: THEIA report and more information, we have more information about
Speaker 14: what exactly happened. But one of the interesting things that
Speaker 14: the Israeli intelligence learned over the last twenty four hours
Speaker 14: is that in Fordaho, the damages are also inside the
Speaker 14: compound underground. There there is intelligence that shows that there
Speaker 14: has been internal collapse, underground collapse inside the facility, which
Speaker 14: is something that shows us that it was badly damaged,
Speaker 14: because if you have centrifuges in this facility and there
Speaker 14: was a penetration of a bomb inside and there was
Speaker 14: collapse inside, then those centrifuges are gone.
Speaker 1: In other words, CNN's exclusive was actually a dud. It
Speaker 1: wasn't true, and they haven't even attempted to correct the record.
Speaker 1: They just say, oh, the intelligence has now shifted. It
Speaker 1: is no wonder other people are losing trust in CNN. Adam,
Speaker 1: let's bring.
Speaker 5: You in here.
Speaker 1: Very awkward to have your own guest completely dismantle your argument.
Speaker 4: What are your thoughts?
Speaker 10: Yeah, my thoughts are you know, Jake Tapper and CNN
Speaker 10: committed a media sin running to the very first news
Speaker 10: source that comes out.
Speaker 12: Just like any sort of.
Speaker 10: Major event, there's a lot of information that is coming out.
Speaker 10: Some of it is wrong, some of it is loose
Speaker 10: and not one percent accurate. And I've actually taken that
Speaker 10: personal step. I don't react right way to most things.
Speaker 10: I wait two or three days before I get some
Speaker 10: sort of reaction because likely the initial story is not correct.
Speaker 10: So Jake Tapper, in just like much of the mainstream media,
Speaker 10: wants to find some sort of report that shows that
Speaker 10: Trump was somehow bad or Trump was incompetent. So they
Speaker 10: ran with the first thing, which he'll even say it
Speaker 10: was early, but should have been his indicator that maybe
Speaker 10: we should have some sort of hesitancy using this as gospel.
Speaker 10: They ran to it, and they only did it for
Speaker 10: one reason, and it wasn't to inform the public.
Speaker 12: It was to set a.
Speaker 10: Narrative that Trump, even though he went ahead and did this,
Speaker 10: he did it in an incompetent way and we should
Speaker 10: all mock him because it actually didn't achieve.
Speaker 12: But he said it was going to achieve.
Speaker 1: Well said, and he really exposes him, doesn't he, Adam,
Speaker 1: thank you so much. A quick break, but when we return,
Speaker 1: all things media bias with Jared Henderson welcome back, joining
Speaker 1: me now as he does each and every week. Sky
Speaker 1: News Australia's media watchdog columnists Jared Henderson, Jared, thank you
Speaker 1: for joining us.
Speaker 5: Now.
Speaker 4: What a week it's been for me.
Speaker 1: Antoinette Latouf is a terrible day for the ABC. I
Speaker 1: think you've got a grab for us to react to.
Speaker 6: I was punished for my political opinion. I won't be
Speaker 6: taking any questions. I'll have more to say in due time.
Speaker 6: Thank you.
Speaker 15: Well.
Speaker 4: I think we discussed this before.
Speaker 16: I've always held the view that being a political activist,
Speaker 16: she shouldn't have been employed. She was employed as a
Speaker 16: casual for five days and they dismissed her after three.
Speaker 16: I never thought she should have been dismissed. They could
Speaker 16: have waited two days and the way it was done
Speaker 16: was very unprofessional and I completely agree with the judges
Speaker 16: verdict on this. But what's going to be considered here
Speaker 16: is how the ABC runs things. They've got a legal
Speaker 16: department of about thirty people. That's very large. They get up,
Speaker 16: they get into these legal battles, they lose many of them.
Speaker 16: And what happened in a tube case before she was
Speaker 16: the smith Suddenly on that Wednesday morning, having started on
Speaker 16: the Monday in a morning program, she went through six
Speaker 16: levels of management, so six people were involved in the
Speaker 16: decision making, from the chair to the managing director, to
Speaker 16: the content editor and others, which an extraordinary bureaucracy.
Speaker 4: Now one of the whole thing's bungled.
Speaker 16: So then they had a panic. Why you'd have a
Speaker 16: panic when you're three days into a five day contract
Speaker 16: with someone you don't want to engage further. It can't
Speaker 16: be understood.
Speaker 4: It's so incompetent.
Speaker 1: Anyone who's managed people, or dealt with controversies, or dealt
Speaker 1: with staffing matters knows that that was the complete wrong way.
Speaker 1: And the judge, I agree, was completely right to point
Speaker 1: it out. None of them are with the ABC anymore
Speaker 1: because they're all incompetent, each more incompetent than the last.
Speaker 4: Further up the chain you go.
Speaker 1: But you're right, I think there's this huge I think
Speaker 1: there is a huge, untold story here with what was
Speaker 1: the last case that the ABC challenged in court or
Speaker 1: defended it. Didn't want to settle that they actually won
Speaker 1: because we're on the hook now, not just the seventy
Speaker 1: thousand dollars, which, by the way, that's thirty five thousand
Speaker 1: dollars a shift that we the tax payer, have paid
Speaker 1: because the managers are stupid, right, that's the only reason.
Speaker 1: Never should have been hired, Never should have been said.
Speaker 4: I'll probably go high when they.
Speaker 1: It'll be millions of dollars. I've heard reports up to
Speaker 1: two million dollars.
Speaker 16: I think that's quite likely when you add in all
Speaker 16: the legal costs and the other cost.
Speaker 4: It's just contemptuous for the taxpayer.
Speaker 16: And the other point I think with the ABC is
Speaker 16: that they tend to go for people like miss latoof
Speaker 16: I mean people who make mistakes like Laura Tingo, Luise Milligan,
Speaker 16: John Lyons and others. They don't go near him, and
Speaker 16: often they get promoted upstairs. But someone who's not well
Speaker 16: known they have a panic about.
Speaker 1: Really, maybe there's a bit of a problem with that
Speaker 1: diversity program that they've got going on there. Look, let's
Speaker 1: move on ABC Radio National Breakfast. We've got to grab
Speaker 1: from Melissa Clark.
Speaker 15: I did find it interesting that he said that you
Speaker 15: know where he does have these concerns about the legality,
Speaker 15: that it's something that he would relay in private. It
Speaker 15: kind of put off a little bing inside my head
Speaker 15: because it's only in the last couple of hours that
Speaker 15: we've seen Donald Trump publish a text message from Mark Russer,
Speaker 15: the Secretary General of NATO, and Mark ruther had sent
Speaker 15: it a very I think it's fair to describe it
Speaker 15: as a pretty obsequious text message, and Donald Trump just
Speaker 15: posts it on truth Social So even if Winston Peters
Speaker 15: and others do want to raise their concerns in private
Speaker 15: with Donald Trump, sometimes you just never know where you
Speaker 15: communications might end up.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 16: Yeah, Well when I heard that, a little bing in
Speaker 16: my head and I thought, you're deally with the New
Speaker 16: Zealand Foreign Minister. Winston Peters, a very experienced politician. And
Speaker 16: what happens now is that when anyone's interviewed, Melissa Clark's
Speaker 16: invited on to comment on it. So you can't go
Speaker 16: on and have an interview and there's no debate. So
Speaker 16: Selly Sarah does the interview, the interview takes place, Melissa
Speaker 16: Clark makes a comment on it, and she comments things
Speaker 16: are obsequious, or bing went off in her head, or
Speaker 16: she didn't think it was a proper answer, but mister
Speaker 16: Peter's had no right of comeback. So what you've got is,
Speaker 16: I mean, now you've got John Lyons interpreting the Trump
Speaker 16: administration for us. You've got Laura Tingle about to go
Speaker 16: overseas to tell the rest of the world about us.
Speaker 4: And you've got Melissa.
Speaker 16: Clark on Radio National Breakfast telling us how to listen
Speaker 16: to Winston Peters. Winstons vid has been around for about
Speaker 16: four decades. He's a very experienced politician. People who follow
Speaker 16: politics in New Zealand know exactly what he's on about.
Speaker 16: The interview did was quite fine, and you get these
Speaker 16: editorial comments. So I mean, no problem Melissa Clark talking
Speaker 16: on television, but she doesn't have to interpret everything for us.
Speaker 16: We're not that thick.
Speaker 1: Radio National Breakfast Sally Sara one of our regulars on here,
Speaker 1: We've got to grab let's let's have a listen.
Speaker 17: Finally, the opposition leader Susan Lee gave her first major
Speaker 17: speech at the Press Club yesterday after the federal election
Speaker 17: and is talking about having a fresh approach and doing
Speaker 17: things differently. Have you noticed a shift in the opposition's
Speaker 17: approach since the election. Well, time will tell, I guess,
Speaker 17: and I think we'll just have to wait and see
Speaker 17: whether you know, what the rhetoric is actually is matched
Speaker 17: by action.
Speaker 1: Well, there's some inconsistencies with how the.
Speaker 16: Well certainly comes on first, and she gets a reasonably
Speaker 16: tough interview, but that's fair enough. She had a will
Speaker 16: and it was a good interview.
Speaker 4: But there comes Gallagh.
Speaker 16: Then Senator Gallahad comes on and she gets to comment
Speaker 16: on Susan Lee at the end of the interview, and
Speaker 16: she's sort of as gentle, but she puts her down
Speaker 16: and indicates that she's not ready going very far with this,
Speaker 16: and she's entitled to say that. But then by then
Speaker 16: Susan Lee is out the door in Camberrall wherever it
Speaker 16: was done, and there's no right of reply to what
Speaker 16: Senator gallah has said. So once again there's just a
Speaker 16: lack of balance in it and professionalism in it. You
Speaker 16: don't need to ask that final question. You could always
Speaker 16: ask something from which the senator is actually responsible for.
Speaker 4: Yeah, definitely a good idea.
Speaker 1: One more grab ABC radio host Carl Ellis she's weighing
Speaker 1: into that controversial Tucker Carlson and yeah, let's her listen.
Speaker 18: We're in a bad place if someone like that, who
Speaker 18: I don't actually regard as a good faith actor in
Speaker 18: the American media landscape, if he's the only one saying
Speaker 18: to a proponent of war, do you actually understand the
Speaker 18: country you seek to Topple.
Speaker 19: Got to say on that clip between that went viral
Speaker 19: between Tucker Carlson and Ted Cruz, what alarmed me is
Speaker 19: that I definitely could answer more of the questions than
Speaker 19: Ted Cruz.
Speaker 4: Wasn't that alarming?
Speaker 18: Though in some ways it come as a lawmaker, because
Speaker 18: I would always expect you to answer more questions.
Speaker 1: No, but he's a law Oh, carl Vellis is a
Speaker 1: Carlson fan, Tucker Carlson.
Speaker 16: Tucker Carlson fan, and she gives this sort of opportunity
Speaker 16: to say what she wants to say. But what's missing
Speaker 16: there was this reference that I should have mentioned earlier,
Speaker 16: this reference or there's flattery, and then followed by this
Speaker 16: reference to the American South. Now ref Epstein's comment, there
Speaker 16: is very snobbish. What's basically saying that any senator from
Speaker 16: the American South, presumably democratic or Republican like Ted Cruise's
Speaker 16: a Republican doesn't know anything. Ted Cruise is a highly
Speaker 16: skilled politician, he's a well qualified lawyer. He knows a lot.
Speaker 16: And you've got ref epscene having a go at him
Speaker 16: for no particular reason except he doesn't like his views.
Speaker 16: And Patricia Kelli Cavella says she knows more than he does. Well,
Speaker 16: the issue was whether Iran had ten million or ninety
Speaker 16: million people. Now there's ninety million and Ted cures win
Speaker 16: for ten that's not the issue issue he didn't know.
Speaker 4: He didn't know.
Speaker 16: But the issue was did they have a nuclear capacity?
Speaker 16: That's the issue, not not how many people live there.
Speaker 16: I mean, it could be a real problem if with
Speaker 16: five million people it had nuclear capacity. So but once
Speaker 16: again you've got this combination of sort of being dismissive
Speaker 16: of people, and I agree.
Speaker 1: I also I think Tucker Carlson wouldn't have known the
Speaker 1: answer to that until.
Speaker 4: He googled it. Oh, he would have to look it up.
Speaker 4: No one knows every single do That's ridiculous.
Speaker 1: But Jared Henderson, thank you so much for your insights
Speaker 1: as always, really appreciate it. That's all the time we
Speaker 1: have for tonight. We're back the same time next week though,
Speaker 1: but up next is Newsnight.