Speaker 1: Hello, and welcome out Louders to Mama Mia. Out loud
Speaker 1: It's what women are actually talking about on Monday, the
Speaker 1: twenty ninth of June.
Speaker 2: My name is Hollywayne Wright, I'm Claire Stephens.
Speaker 3: And I'm Amelia Luster.
Speaker 1: Oh it's Amelia Leicester's birthday. And you may have noticed
Speaker 1: this last week. I know some out louders did. But
Speaker 1: one of the things we're doing to make Amelia Leicester
Speaker 1: feel special is bring her boyfriend into the studio. That
Speaker 1: is what's Simon.
Speaker 3: Baker, and he does make me podcast better.
Speaker 2: We replaced the creepy photo of Jesse with Simon Baker.
Speaker 1: And how are you feeling?
Speaker 2: I feel better about it. I feel a lot better
Speaker 2: about it.
Speaker 1: We were talking last week, Amelia about how Stephen Bartlett
Speaker 1: Diary of the CEO had three glasses of wine and
Speaker 1: that reckoned he couldn't podcast for the rest of the week.
Speaker 1: How did your birthday drinks?
Speaker 2: Yes?
Speaker 3: Why? I think it was a mind over matter situation
Speaker 3: because I did have birth to drinks last night. I
Speaker 3: bought new friends and old friends together. Some of them
Speaker 3: are out louders. I'll let them be the judge on
Speaker 3: how the mingling of groups Wench, but I am not
Speaker 3: hungover today. Amazing.
Speaker 1: She's so much better than Stephen Parler. Well, we're going
Speaker 1: to get to him. Here's what's on our agenda today.
Speaker 1: Miranda Kerr and her billionaire husband just waived a magic
Speaker 1: money wand and changed the lives of thousands of Americans.
Speaker 1: Amelia knows why.
Speaker 2: Plus Karl Stefanovic's martyrdom strategy. Do we think it's going
Speaker 2: to work? And where do we think he's going next?
Speaker 3: And this is the week Taylor Swift is getting married,
Speaker 3: and we have the New York Times verified details.
Speaker 1: But first, in case you missed it, it's tax time, friends,
Speaker 1: and some people are delighted about that. Some people are
Speaker 1: in an admin spiral. Some people are planning a shopping hall.
Speaker 1: King Charles obviously saw all the fun everyone has at
Speaker 1: tax time and decided he wanted in.
Speaker 2: I bet he's gone to office works. He totally gets
Speaker 2: some little snacky snow and a whiteboard.
Speaker 1: He has he totally has because for the first time ever,
Speaker 1: senior royals are revealing their tax returns. Right to be clear,
Speaker 1: they don't have to, so royals don't even have to
Speaker 1: pay tax, but they the Queen changed the game on
Speaker 1: that and started paying tax back in nineteen ninety three,
Speaker 1: but they've never had to declare how much or have
Speaker 1: it made public. But Charles, we've talked about this on
Speaker 1: the show a lot. Charles and William keep saying that
Speaker 1: they're going to change things, that they want more transparency
Speaker 1: in the royal family. That they know people are a
Speaker 1: bit suss about all those houses they've gotten who they
Speaker 1: let stay in them, like their dodgy relatives have some
Speaker 1: dodgy connections. So they have released their tax returns and
Speaker 1: just like mine, King Charles reveals that last year he
Speaker 1: paid twelve point nine million pounds in tax. That is
Speaker 1: nearly twenty five million Aussie dollars. Well, it sounds like
Speaker 1: a lot of money.
Speaker 2: Right, Yeah, seems like he's keeping the economy of flying.
Speaker 1: The thing about all this is, though, is that so
Speaker 1: royals pay tax on their earnings and they earn money
Speaker 1: from basically the land they own. So Charles, most of
Speaker 1: Charles's money comes from something called the Duchy of Lancaster,
Speaker 1: which is like a big parcel of land and businesses
Speaker 1: that are on that land and rents that get paid
Speaker 1: for properties on that land, and so he gets income
Speaker 1: from all that, and that's what he pays tax on.
Speaker 1: But then on the other hand, the royals also get
Speaker 1: given money by the government, so it's like they give
Speaker 1: the governments money and they get money from the government.
Speaker 3: So they're basically welfare queens.
Speaker 1: They basically are. And also the government pays them for
Speaker 1: some of the money that they're then giving back to
Speaker 1: the government, if you see what I mean. So for example,
Speaker 1: there's a big prison on some of the royal land
Speaker 1: and the government pays millions of pounds to rent that
Speaker 1: prison from them, and then Charles pays tax back on it.
Speaker 1: Do you know what I mean? It sounds like some
Speaker 1: kind of boomerash tax scandal. I don't know, but for
Speaker 1: the first time we know exactly how much money they're
Speaker 1: all in.
Speaker 3: I do wonder what he is allow to tax deduct
Speaker 3: with his accountant, Crowns gin what else, Like just think
Speaker 3: synonymous with being King Charles Dilotines.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I'm interested in why he's getting money from the government.
Speaker 3: That doesn't feel like that good.
Speaker 1: So here's the thing is, their royal family gets money
Speaker 1: from the government to keep things going. So this year
Speaker 1: they're going to get one hundred million pounds to like
Speaker 1: renovate an old palace, sort this out, sort that out,
Speaker 1: keep the royalness of Britain going. So they get money
Speaker 1: from the government, they charge the government for things, and
Speaker 1: they pay back money to the government. So it's a very.
Speaker 2: This is the thing I understand transparency. I think that's lovely.
Speaker 2: I would also like to know more details, like about
Speaker 2: his tax return documents, like like what he is claiming,
Speaker 2: what holidays, counters, work travel, et cetera. I guess he'd
Speaker 2: be able to claim everything, because it's like he's always
Speaker 2: do you know what I mean, Like, you know, Holly,
Speaker 2: if we go on a trip, we could be like
Speaker 2: we went to a book shop and signed a book,
Speaker 2: so therefore we can do I don't do that on
Speaker 2: my tax return, so that's why I can make a
Speaker 2: joke about it, like you could kind of claim it
Speaker 2: as a work thing. But he's he's always king, and.
Speaker 1: He's always speaking all the time, and he famously used
Speaker 1: to have whether or not he still does, we're not sure.
Speaker 1: But when he was Prince Charles and like a bit
Speaker 1: of a young man about town, he used to always
Speaker 1: travel with an equerry who would make his martinis for
Speaker 1: him and carry them around a party, and he also
Speaker 1: always had someone to squeeze the toothpaste onto his toothbrush
Speaker 1: wherever he was.
Speaker 3: That can't be real, so surely it's definitely real.
Speaker 1: So those that would all be taxtadtable Martini guy, toothpaste
Speaker 1: guy carry. There was even in Tina Brown's Palace paper
Speaker 1: books there was talk about sometimes if you'd go to
Speaker 1: a country house, and again I'm sure that things have changed,
Speaker 1: she said generously. He would insist if he was going
Speaker 1: to stay at some fancy person's country house, that a
Speaker 1: bed was brought in for him, his bed, his pictures
Speaker 1: on the wall. So then there's bedroom guy for pillar fluffing.
Speaker 3: Guy, soft toy guy as well.
Speaker 1: Didn't he need to in a particular combos soft toys.
Speaker 1: So there's a lot of people employed to make sure
Speaker 1: that the king and the princes and everybody can feel
Speaker 1: important enough. But this is apparently what William was going
Speaker 1: to unpick. So a lot of people might be out
Speaker 1: of work for not squeezing toothpaste anymore. And I don't know,
Speaker 1: I'm up in arms about that.
Speaker 3: I'd like to see AI do that.
Speaker 2: In a statement at the end of last week, the
Speaker 2: Nine Network announced that Karl Stefanovic, who has hosted the
Speaker 2: Today Show for more than twenty years, would leave his
Speaker 2: role immediately. It followed days of controversy after Karl used
Speaker 2: his independent podcast to interview British far right activist Tommy Robinson,
Speaker 2: best known as a co founder of the English Defense
Speaker 2: League and anti Islam movement established in two thousand and nine.
Speaker 2: Tommy has also been to prison several times and has
Speaker 2: been convicted of several crimes such as assault, mortgage fraud
Speaker 2: and contemptive court a bit of a rap sheet. In
Speaker 2: two thousand and five, he lost his job as an
Speaker 2: apprentice engineer when he was jailed for assaulting an off
Speaker 2: duty police officer. He then started his street activism as
Speaker 2: a member of the fascist British National Party. He styles
Speaker 2: himself as a bit of an independent journalist and that
Speaker 2: is a claim that Stefanovic didn't challenge during their hour
Speaker 2: long interview, despite Robinson's frequent involvement in violent unrest and
Speaker 2: peddling of misinformation online. Robinson has also shared graphic footage
Speaker 2: of a stabbing attack in Belfast allegedly carried out by
Speaker 2: a Sudanese born suspect, and then he promoted rallies which
Speaker 2: devolved into violent attacks on migrants and the burning of homes.
Speaker 2: His content was singled out by police as playing a
Speaker 2: significant role in the radicalization of the terrorist behind the
Speaker 2: twin seventeen Finsbury Park Mosk attack, and generally his content
Speaker 2: is understood to have a lot of hate speech about Muslims.
Speaker 2: He's been denied in Australian visa twice and has a
Speaker 2: very transparent hatred of the media. He's been convicted for
Speaker 2: stalking and threatening a string of journalists in late night
Speaker 2: visits to their homes. So overall not a great guy.
Speaker 2: This is who Karl has his arm around at the
Speaker 2: beginning of the interview and who he conducted the conversation
Speaker 2: with in a very matey tone. Stefanovic also praised Robinson
Speaker 2: for his tenacity and courage and signed off with I
Speaker 2: love you mate. On Thursday, Maya and Holly dropped a
Speaker 2: bonusm Maya Out Loud episode unpacking the news of Karl's
Speaker 2: departure from nine. That was the moment that we knew
Speaker 2: it was official. But since then, he's posted a viral
Speaker 2: farewell message on social media defending his choice of podcast
Speaker 2: interviewees and sounding relieved that he is finally free and
Speaker 2: truly independent. Here's a bit of that message.
Speaker 4: So here's what I believe in the public deserve to
Speaker 4: hear perspectives. This country was built by hard working assies
Speaker 4: from all around the world, and they were bound by
Speaker 4: the same values but very different experiences. So on my show,
Speaker 4: I've spoken to people who have different perspectives. I know
Speaker 4: that why and some people up. Sometimes I agree with
Speaker 4: everything against says, sometimes I don't. But importantly, you get
Speaker 4: to make up your mind. You have the right to
Speaker 4: hear from different voices. Freedom of speech here and around
Speaker 4: the world is what this show is about.
Speaker 3: I just can't wait to be free of my multimillion
Speaker 3: dollar contract. I know, it's all I want in life.
Speaker 4: I know.
Speaker 2: I think he's been very shackled and now he is
Speaker 2: free of being paid that much. Over the weekend, there
Speaker 2: seem to be two camps emerging. There are those who
Speaker 2: now see Karl as a symbol of free speech and
Speaker 2: supporting him is basically saying, yeah, this is ridiculous. We
Speaker 2: can be trusted to make up our own minds. And
Speaker 2: there are those who are cynical about this well trodden
Speaker 2: strategy of leaning into controversy and then building independent media
Speaker 2: on the back of it. Holly, does this feel reminiscent
Speaker 2: of some other big names in media.
Speaker 1: Absolutely, this is a it's become over the last few years,
Speaker 1: a really well trodden path for particularly in America and
Speaker 1: the UK, for mainstream media people. So Piers Morgan is
Speaker 1: a good example right in the UK. So Piers Morgan
Speaker 1: former newspaper editor, and he prides himself on grilling people,
Speaker 1: which is not something that Karl is doing. Has to
Speaker 1: be said on his podcast, at least not at the moment.
Speaker 1: Maybe he will do more of that. But Piers Morgan
Speaker 1: was a very mainstream media figure and controversial in a way.
Speaker 1: But he famously left TV in Britain in a huff
Speaker 1: after he had a fight on air with a colleague
Speaker 1: about Megan Markle. His views about Megan Markle a kind
Speaker 1: of be on the pale. But anyway, he huffed off
Speaker 1: and he went to work for Murdoch for a while,
Speaker 1: making a sort of TV talk show on YouTube for Murdoch.
Speaker 1: But now he has set up his own media company
Speaker 1: and it's called, of course Uncensored because he's not no
Speaker 1: longer censored. He can say what he wants, and he's
Speaker 1: built it from one show to three. So there's there's
Speaker 1: a history, there's his main show, his opinion show, there's
Speaker 1: a history show now, there's a royal show now, and
Speaker 1: you can expect that to probably grow. In the US.
Speaker 1: Tucker Carlson did this, Megan Kelly did this. Less well
Speaker 1: known media names have also done it, where they've said,
Speaker 1: I don't want to work for the New York Times anymore,
Speaker 1: Barry Weiss, I don't want to work for whatever because
Speaker 1: I'm censored in what I can say. I'm going to
Speaker 1: go off and build my own. Louis c K, Yes,
Speaker 1: Louis c K. Even Russell Brand, you could argue, you know,
Speaker 1: has definitely done this. So we live in a very
Speaker 1: different media landscape than the one that the likes of
Speaker 1: Carl came up in, and some of us are obviously
Speaker 1: a bit more aware of that than others, because some
Speaker 1: people saw the firing and inverted commas of Carl and
Speaker 1: we're kind of like, oh, no, he's been fired. But
Speaker 1: it's quite apparent that Carl wanted this. There is no
Speaker 1: it was untenable for him to keep doing what he
Speaker 1: was doing over here on his own independent podcast and
Speaker 1: still be smiling and interviewing the Prime Minister on Today Show,
Speaker 1: sitting next to Serah. But every day that was just
Speaker 1: becoming untenable. The Tommy Robinson decision, it needs to be
Speaker 1: clear that has that's considered beyond the pale in Britain,
Speaker 1: it's considered beyond the pale everywhere. You know, the far
Speaker 1: right Party of Britain, Reform UK, they will have nothing
Speaker 1: to do with Tommy Robinson, like he is a really
Speaker 1: out there marginalized figure. So making that particular decision was
Speaker 1: very red ragtable in terms of I don't know how
Speaker 1: you can you can expect to keep a mainstream job
Speaker 1: if you've done that, particularly in the way that he's
Speaker 1: done it, which is not a grilling, not a prosecution
Speaker 1: of ideas, but a mate sit down. And particularly that
Speaker 1: social video I think was one of the things that
Speaker 1: really really made that clear that he was It just
Speaker 1: wasn't possible for nine any more to keep him on staff.
Speaker 2: And I think that detail about Tommy Robinson is really
Speaker 2: important because when I first saw we talked about it
Speaker 2: Holly before we talked about it on the show, about
Speaker 2: what it looked like he might lose his job, and
Speaker 2: I think a lot of us had never heard that
Speaker 2: name before Tommy Robinson. And you think, well, there are
Speaker 2: a lot of provocative people online who say all sorts
Speaker 2: of things, and just because you interview somebody doesn't mean
Speaker 2: you endorse everything. There there's that argument that a lot
Speaker 2: of people are leaning into. But this particular person having
Speaker 2: him on your show and not having a critical eye
Speaker 2: at all, I think you're exactly right. It was orchestrated
Speaker 2: that you can't do that and then go sit.
Speaker 1: On the Today So to beic clear, and I mean,
Speaker 1: as you said, Mia and I had a conversation about
Speaker 1: this on Thursday, and I urge everyone to go listen
Speaker 1: to it because Mia obviously has some really interesting insights
Speaker 1: into this. She not only owns a media company, co
Speaker 1: owns a media company, but she used to work with Carl,
Speaker 1: worked at the Today Show and all these things, so
Speaker 1: she has really really good knowledge about this. But it's true,
Speaker 1: of course that you know, particularly an independent media world,
Speaker 1: you can sit down with whoever you want. Platforming doesn't
Speaker 1: always mean endorsement. But there is a very specific pattern
Speaker 1: in the way that Carl has decided to go with
Speaker 1: his guests on his show, which is in one very
Speaker 1: strong political direction. He has thrown his hat literally because
Speaker 1: he wears a big hat in all the answer for
Speaker 1: his show. He's thrown his hat in that ring. It's
Speaker 1: a little disingenuous to be saying, oh, I want to
Speaker 1: hear all different perspectives when it seems that actually most
Speaker 1: of the guests that you're having all have one same perspective.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and also you don't hear Sarah Ferguson or Lee
Speaker 3: sales and interviews with controversial figures with the sign off
Speaker 3: of love you mate. Like, that's just not what serious
Speaker 3: journalists do when they're interviewing someone, especially someone controversial. To me,
Speaker 3: I just the cynicism of this is just gobsmacking. I
Speaker 3: went to the source. I didn't want to watch the
Speaker 3: Tommy Robinson interview because life is too short. I watched
Speaker 3: the Holly Valance interview. Now, Holly Valance had a hit
Speaker 3: single back in the early two thousands called Kiss Kiss,
Speaker 3: which had a very risky music video, and she has
Speaker 3: now turned into I think she would describe herself this
Speaker 3: way as an advocate for right wing slash conservative causes
Speaker 3: in the UK. She was married to a billionaire called
Speaker 3: Nick Candy, a property developer for a time. They are
Speaker 3: now divorced, and she says to Karl that she is
Speaker 3: now a stay at home by occupation, but like I said,
Speaker 3: she's also involved in politics. So I wanted to see
Speaker 3: how he conducts one of these interviews on his podcast.
Speaker 3: And I should say that, like most Australians, I used
Speaker 3: to find Kyl so charming, Like he is just a
Speaker 3: very charming, charismatic individual and that's why he's been so
Speaker 3: successful in media. And he's a great interviewer too. But
Speaker 3: what became a parent watching this interview with Holly Valance
Speaker 3: is that all he wanted from Holly was controversial soundbites
Speaker 3: that would catapult him into the headlines. And to Holly's credit,
Speaker 3: Holly was not in the business of promoting Carl. She
Speaker 3: wanted to talk about what she wanted to talk about,
Speaker 3: and she didn't want to be goaded into saying things
Speaker 3: that may or may not represent what she actually thinks
Speaker 3: just so that he can get more famous. So at
Speaker 3: various points in the interview, he keeps saying to her
Speaker 3: she's spoken out in the past about how she thinks
Speaker 3: that immigration numbers are too high in the UK. He
Speaker 3: kept pushing on that because he wanted her to say
Speaker 3: something that would get headlines, and she wouldn't do it
Speaker 3: because even she someone who was sympathetic to the point
Speaker 3: of view that he's putting forward, even she could see
Speaker 3: that this is just the Carl Show. This is him
Speaker 3: just trying to get controversy and upset people for the
Speaker 3: sake of his own brand.
Speaker 1: To be clear, Holly Valance has also been done to
Speaker 1: hang out with Tommy Robinson. Like I think again, the
Speaker 1: pattern of the guests he's choosing is very sure.
Speaker 2: But I think you're right, Amelia. He's going for this
Speaker 2: rage babyge. He's trying to jump on the hate train
Speaker 2: to get views and monetize what he's doing, and so
Speaker 2: the idea that he's therefore been persecuted seems absurd. There's
Speaker 2: an Australian actor and director called Damon Gamo and he
Speaker 2: shared he basically shared the playbook on Instagram, which I
Speaker 2: found really interesting. He said, Carl's just deployed a tactic
Speaker 2: that is sometimes called the martyrdom or persecution strategy. It's
Speaker 2: been used by figures on both the left and right
Speaker 2: of politics, which I really agree with. You see it
Speaker 2: you see it on both sides, he wrote. Step one,
Speaker 2: deliberately violate a social norm by interviewing a controversial figure,
Speaker 2: for example. Step two, generate public backlash. Critics condemn ideally
Speaker 2: an employer pushes back. Step three, reframe the backlash as persecution.
Speaker 2: You post on socials, you tag Elon, You thank him
Speaker 2: for being a bastion of free speech. Step four strengthen
Speaker 2: group identity and grow your audience, and then position yourself
Speaker 2: as someone who tells uncomfortable truths and you encourage subscriptions
Speaker 2: hunt to whatever you're doing. This is exactly what he's done,
Speaker 2: and I find it Carl in that video where he's
Speaker 2: talking about finally being free, he really is appealing to
Speaker 2: the ego of the people who are on his side, saying,
Speaker 2: you're smart enough to make up your own mind. You
Speaker 2: don't have to listen to it. He's kind of there
Speaker 2: are people who are like, yeah, yeah, I am I
Speaker 2: am smart. I can listen to this and decide whether
Speaker 2: or not it's for me. And I think there is
Speaker 2: also an important point to be made about when people
Speaker 2: go independent, the danger of that. So when you are
Speaker 2: hosting the Today Show, you're working for the nine network,
Speaker 2: and there are all sorts of problems with mainstream media
Speaker 2: as well that you can have agendas all of that,
Speaker 2: but when you go fully on your own, you have
Speaker 2: no one to hold you to account to maybe ask questions, you.
Speaker 3: Have no.
Speaker 2: Very very senior producer, maybe say hey, so this is
Speaker 2: the reason people don't interview Tommy Robinson. You don't have
Speaker 2: the kind of journalistic code of ethics or the journalistic standards.
Speaker 2: So in Australia, if ma'm Maya does something wrong, if
Speaker 2: Sidney Morning Herald does something wrong, you can right to
Speaker 2: like like Journalistic Standards Board and file a complaint. If
Speaker 2: an independent journalist does that, there's no kind of mode
Speaker 2: to challenge it because they're just doing their own thing.
Speaker 1: The thing that's tricky because it's absolutely right that by
Speaker 1: nine letting go, letting Carl go, they've created something of
Speaker 1: a martist storyline for him, no question, and you know
Speaker 1: there have been other examples of this, you know, but
Speaker 1: the sort of letting someone go and then that becoming
Speaker 1: part of their narrative that allows them to rise to
Speaker 1: a certain level is tricky because the alternative is also
Speaker 1: really hard. I was talking to me about this on
Speaker 1: Thursdays at where I said, why couldn't Nine in a
Speaker 1: way just hold their nerve because Carl was on a
Speaker 1: one year extension on his contract. So in theory you
Speaker 1: could like hold your breath till December and maybe until
Speaker 1: the Tommy Robinson red flag, as I say, happened they
Speaker 1: were there would have been lots of talks. There had
Speaker 1: been a campaign had started from mad fucking Witches, who
Speaker 1: are a pressure group who get together and pressure advertisers
Speaker 1: on networks. This has been part of Kyle Sandaland's story
Speaker 1: for a really long time, saying why are you employing
Speaker 1: this person? Why are you advertising on this show? Right?
Speaker 1: And so in a way you think when I saw
Speaker 1: that Nine were going to fire in inverted commas Karl.
Speaker 1: Although they've made it clear both sides that they're not calling.
Speaker 2: It that, No, they're making it sound like in a
Speaker 2: mutual agreement.
Speaker 1: There was a bit of me, as someone who's resistant
Speaker 1: to that Mader narrative, that's like, oh, you've just made it.
Speaker 1: You've just given him more credibility and standing in doing that,
Speaker 1: written this free speech script. But in truth, there didn't
Speaker 1: really have much option because it's such an outrageous thing
Speaker 1: to do. To be seen walking down the street with
Speaker 1: your arm around a guy who isn't even allowed into
Speaker 1: Australia because his views are considered so extremely dangerous and
Speaker 1: violent that the pressure that was going to come to
Speaker 1: nine as a result of that was probably going to
Speaker 1: be too damaging. And that was the same story with
Speaker 1: Kyle Sanderalance for a very long time. You know, is
Speaker 1: that networks allowed him to be on the network despite
Speaker 1: complaints because he brought in a lot of money, and
Speaker 1: he made a lot of money, and he brought a
Speaker 1: lot of listeners. But where there's a tipping point, when
Speaker 1: the cash cow becomes a bit of a liability, that's
Speaker 1: when they have to act. So, in a way, I
Speaker 1: think a bit of new media literacy, Carl will be fine,
Speaker 1: probably because he's got this free speech narrative. He could
Speaker 1: now choose to build a subscriber based model for his
Speaker 1: media empire that will be lucrative. Or advertisers who are
Speaker 1: not spooked by his choice of guests will follow him
Speaker 1: because they know his ability to attract attention is enormous
Speaker 1: and we talk about it all the time. We live
Speaker 1: in an attention economy.
Speaker 3: Or Allah Barry Weiss, he may have some very wealthy
Speaker 3: patrons who are subsidizing his career move.
Speaker 1: Yep, and that's one thing that Mead talked about on Thursday,
Speaker 1: thinking that something has shifted in that corner for Karl lately.
Speaker 1: Read into that to what you will, But either way,
Speaker 1: he now has the freedom to build an empire off
Speaker 1: network if you like, and to be honest in the
Speaker 1: media landscape of twenty twenty six. That's a great place
Speaker 1: for him to be. Whether or not it's a great
Speaker 1: place for politics to be, etc. Is a question depending
Speaker 1: on your views, but he has definitely this has probably
Speaker 1: been a net positive for him. We'll put links in
Speaker 1: the show notes to the episode that we did with
Speaker 1: Mia last Thursday, the column I wrote about this on Friday,
Speaker 1: and also to the No Filter episode that Caitlinbrook did
Speaker 1: with Jessica Row That's Live Today, where she talks about
Speaker 1: her relationship with Karl and that time he had toologize
Speaker 1: her to her for quite an infamous incident. All those
Speaker 1: links will be in the shadouts.
Speaker 3: After the break. All the actual verified details about Taylor
Speaker 3: Swift's weating this weekend. This is the week after months
Speaker 3: of speculation, the New York Times has confirmed what we
Speaker 3: talked about on this show last week, which is that
Speaker 3: Taylor Swift is walking down the aisle this weekend, and
Speaker 3: she is doing it just as we talked about last
Speaker 3: week again at the Madison Square Garden arena in yours?
Speaker 1: Are you putting all your chips on that?
Speaker 3: The New York Times confirmed that Taylor Swift had booked
Speaker 3: Madison Square Garden for Friday and Saturday night, and the
Speaker 3: city leaked to The New York Times that they have
Speaker 3: asked for the streets around the garden to be closed.
Speaker 3: Final piece of evidence is that various players on the
Speaker 3: Kansas City Chiefs, which is Travis Kelsey's football team, have
Speaker 3: booked hotel rooms around the Madison Square Garden complex. What's happening?
Speaker 1: You are not going to be able to escape this
Speaker 1: wedding this weekend, even if we don't see a single
Speaker 1: picture from it.
Speaker 2: No, do you think, No, We're just gonna get We're
Speaker 2: just gonna get all the gossip. I mean, I've heard.
Speaker 2: One little tid bit I've heard is that Taylor got
Speaker 2: the idea of Madison Square Garden from when she went
Speaker 2: to I believe it was Selena Gomez's wedding and she
Speaker 2: realized that that was going to be the only way,
Speaker 2: like having it enclosed is the only way.
Speaker 3: Because Selena's wedding was disrupted by drones. So let me
Speaker 3: explain to you what the source has told The Times
Speaker 3: about exactly how this is going to go down. Friday night.
Speaker 3: We're going to have an intimate gathering of around one
Speaker 3: hundred people, which if anyone has gotten married and done
Speaker 3: a guest list before, Holly, I know you don't understand this.
Speaker 3: It's hard to keep to one hundred, like that's kind
Speaker 3: of the magic number that pretty much everyone always says
Speaker 3: they want, and it's really hard.
Speaker 2: And especially like she's invited Graham Norton, do you know
Speaker 2: what I mean? She invited him, so he's not coming.
Speaker 2: He's definitely not coming to that one. But I just know,
Speaker 2: I just think she's been a little bit liberal.
Speaker 3: She has cast away now because I needed a stadium.
Speaker 3: On Saturday, there's a bigger celebration of around a thousand
Speaker 3: people also at the Garden, and that's possibly a concert.
Speaker 3: Some people think, by the way, that neither of these
Speaker 3: is actually like the wedding, Like there's a quite credible
Speaker 3: rumor that they are already they've already exchanged their vowels
Speaker 3: and that both of these are kind of celebrations. I'll
Speaker 3: tell you some other rumors. Stevie Nix and Tim McGraw,
Speaker 3: who was famously the subject of her first ever single,
Speaker 3: rumor to be performing on Saturday night. Stella McCartney has
Speaker 3: designed the wedding dress. As we know, Stella designed Meghan
Speaker 3: Duchess of Sussex's after party dress.
Speaker 2: Iconic the whole to neck YEP loved it.
Speaker 3: Kenny Chesney, the Country Star and Kesher have canceled their
Speaker 3: tour dates for exactly this weekend, so they're thought to
Speaker 3: be attending Kasher of TikTok Fang and that the company
Speaker 3: tasked with doing the garden for this are going to
Speaker 3: be engineering it into a rose garden because that ties
Speaker 3: in with the engagement photos. There's also a song on
Speaker 3: the album read called The Lucky One, with a lyric
Speaker 3: that says, choose the rose garden of a Madison Square.
Speaker 1: She didn't have to choose.
Speaker 3: She could have both.
Speaker 2: She could have both because correctly.
Speaker 1: If I'm wrong, not that I've been reading about this
Speaker 1: at all, there's no natural light in Marthon now, so
Speaker 1: she has to create all that. Yeah, and I've read
Speaker 1: reports about this firm that she may or may not
Speaker 1: have employed to do that. Who can basically create you
Speaker 1: a natural light seeming dome enclosure whatever you want anywhere
Speaker 1: in the world, like in your basement or whatever.
Speaker 3: So I used it for my son's birthday party this weekend.
Speaker 1: It's not sounding cheap. Sounding cheap, I don't think so.
Speaker 1: I want to know what we think ethically. Not that
Speaker 1: I'm looking for, you know, validation here, but I've seen
Speaker 1: some commentary that's like, let them just have their wedding, right,
Speaker 1: like this is true love and they just want to
Speaker 1: do this. I have a bit of a if you're
Speaker 1: going to have a huge concert Madamson Square Garden for
Speaker 1: your wedding, I want to share. You've got to share
Speaker 1: that shit. How I need to see Stevie Nicks singing
Speaker 1: some wedding.
Speaker 3: I think both Taylor and Travis have what we call
Speaker 3: main character energy. And I think you choose Madison Square Garden. Yes,
Speaker 3: so you can control the photos, but also so that
Speaker 3: you can give us the photos.
Speaker 1: Yeah, so you think we will because she has a
Speaker 1: very tight relationship with us swifty fans. Obviously, you think
Speaker 1: we will be seeing the inside of this event.
Speaker 3: There is no way we're not seeingide of this event.
Speaker 2: No, great, I agree, I think we're getting stuff. I
Speaker 2: will say, from the perspective of a wedding guest, I've
Speaker 2: got some feedback. I don't want a concert. I don't
Speaker 2: want to I go see Tim McGraw, I don't I
Speaker 2: If I'm at Taylor Swith's wedding and I'm one of
Speaker 2: a thousand guests, I need to be mingling. I need
Speaker 2: to be chatting. And you're going to make me stare
Speaker 2: in there and listen to live music, which is great.
Speaker 2: You're passionate about that, but I don't know. It feels
Speaker 2: very like is this a wedding room?
Speaker 3: But it kind of works because Travis used to before
Speaker 3: he met Taylor. He actually used to plan summer concerts
Speaker 3: like that's how much he loves live music. So the
Speaker 3: two of them are just genuine lives.
Speaker 1: She could have anyone she wanted. Paul McCartney is also
Speaker 1: rumored she could get Adele, she could get Bad Bunny.
Speaker 1: Could she get Bad Dunny. Maybe she could get Harry sALS,
Speaker 1: But she can't be Geuse awkward at the moment he
Speaker 1: is and bad Bunnies in London too. But you know
Speaker 1: for Taylor you would, you would rejig. You could get
Speaker 1: anyone in the world. It will be amazing. But also, yeah,
Speaker 1: a little bit over the top.
Speaker 2: And I think you get to choose one like Brooklyn
Speaker 2: Beckham's wedding and Mark Anthony, like you get one, you can't.
Speaker 2: I just I don't need a full set list. I'm stressed.
Speaker 3: It's for sure it will not be a cash bar.
Speaker 2: No, no, no, no, I don't think so.
Speaker 3: I saw a tweet this week which I have never
Speaker 3: related to anything as hard as I related to this.
Speaker 3: It read, You're in hell. You're staying with one of
Speaker 3: those families that seemingly never eats. They skip breakfast, lunch,
Speaker 3: rolls around and everyone says, I'm not really hungry, there
Speaker 3: are no snacks anywhere. Then they don't eat dinner until
Speaker 3: eight pm. I really related to this because I think
Speaker 3: we've all had that experience. If you're someone who likes food,
Speaker 3: you've had that experience of staying over at someone's house
Speaker 3: and they don't eat breakfast and you're starving and you
Speaker 3: get increasingly hungry, and they just have nothing with which
Speaker 3: to make breakfast food with I don't mean to sound
Speaker 3: like an ungrateful guest, but that is a reality. It
Speaker 3: was interesting because one of the replies to this tweet
Speaker 3: sort of explain the mindset of people who live in
Speaker 3: food free houses. They said, a few years ago, I
Speaker 3: had a friend who was visiting who was hungry every
Speaker 3: two hours, like a baby, Like a baby.
Speaker 1: I'm the baby, the baby, I want to be fed
Speaker 1: every two hours.
Speaker 3: And then there was this other great response, stayed at
Speaker 3: a house like this while pregnant, and they acted shocked.
Speaker 3: I wanted eggs and toast every morning. When I tried
Speaker 3: to cook it, they insisted they do it and seemed
Speaker 3: equally shocked. I wanted more than one egg. Claire, have
Speaker 3: you ever had this experience?
Speaker 1: Yes?
Speaker 2: But I also understand the other side of it, which
Speaker 2: is that I am very much if I'm in a
Speaker 2: house with a group of people, which happened a lot.
Speaker 2: The awkward thing for me is that I'm like, Okay,
Speaker 2: I want breakfast right now. There are eggs in the fridge,
Speaker 2: there are tomatoes, there, there's bread.
Speaker 3: I am not.
Speaker 2: Capable mentally skills wise of making a meal for the
Speaker 2: whole group. I'm not capable of that. I believe you
Speaker 2: couldn't slash. The way I make eggs is probably wrong
Speaker 2: for other people, and I don't want to assume I really.
Speaker 1: Might change their lives. You might blow their mind.
Speaker 2: No, I make eggs wrong, I like overcook them. I've
Speaker 2: had feedback anyway. I then don't want to presume and
Speaker 2: make everybody this awful breakfast, because what's worse not being
Speaker 2: fed or being fed something terrible?
Speaker 1: Don't you think? Don't hosts just have to provide meals?
Speaker 1: Like if people can just stay with me where I live,
Speaker 1: I'm not lunch is hazy because lunch, I'm like, oh,
Speaker 1: I don't know. Lunch is a breakfast and dinner either
Speaker 1: cooking it or dinner or ordering it in or going
Speaker 1: out for You have to plan that, Like are there
Speaker 1: people who don't do that? Yes, you're one of those people.
Speaker 2: Yes, and and the real no, see I just outsource it.
Speaker 1: You'd be like, we're getting a pizza.
Speaker 2: I'm an uber eats gal. But the weird thing is
Speaker 2: Jessie and Luca are very much I think it's about clutter.
Speaker 2: I think it's about mess if I don't want to
Speaker 2: clean up, so whenever people go to their house, they
Speaker 2: never have any food, And it became a thing where
Speaker 2: Mum would call me and be like, hey, we're going
Speaker 2: for afternoon tea. There ain't gonna be tea, so you
Speaker 2: still and get some chippies.
Speaker 1: And Luca thinks that food is clutter. Food is never clutter.
Speaker 2: No world, never never. He also hates waste, so it's
Speaker 2: a whole thing. I'm like, I'll take the waist home,
Speaker 2: don't you worry.
Speaker 1: So if I go away with friends for a weekend,
Speaker 1: I'm thinking, where are we the baby? Yeah, I'm the baby,
Speaker 1: and I'm thinking, where are we having breakfast? I'm going
Speaker 1: to maybe do a bit of googling. I'm going to
Speaker 1: find a good cafe. I'm going to make poor Brent,
Speaker 1: who doesn't care. He just wants to shove something in
Speaker 1: his face, but I care what it is. I'm going
Speaker 1: to make him wander off with me and find it.
Speaker 1: I'm going to do that. And I've been away with
Speaker 1: people who are like, oh, not interested. Maybe I'll have
Speaker 1: some black coffee, like fine, But then when i want
Speaker 1: lunch then and they're like, didn't you just have breakfast?
Speaker 3: And I'm like, what do you mean?
Speaker 1: There was hours ago? Yes, But then it also made
Speaker 1: me realize I do have some friends who are just
Speaker 1: food friends. Like the reason we are close is because
Speaker 1: we'll go out for dinner a few times a year
Speaker 1: because we like the same things and we like to
Speaker 1: eat the same kind of amount, and so it's our bonding.
Speaker 1: When we were in Tasmania, we went to two TikTok breakfasts,
Speaker 1: like places that I'd see recommended. Well, I asked out
Speaker 1: louders and they told me, and then I'd be in
Speaker 1: We've been in line waiting for eggs and Brenda be like,
Speaker 1: why are we here? And I'm like, shut the fuck up,
Speaker 1: It's the best breakfast in town. After the break Miranda
Speaker 1: Kerr and her husband just did something amazing, or did they.
Speaker 1: My cockles were warmed by a famous Australian and their
Speaker 1: American spouse this week. And I don't just mean Jacob
Speaker 1: Alordie showing Kylie Jenner around Byron Bay.
Speaker 2: It is not Kylie.
Speaker 1: Oh, I'm so sorry. I am so sorry. You're so right.
Speaker 1: How could I make that mistake because obviously Kylie if
Speaker 1: she was in Byron Bay, she'd be with Timothy shallow
Speaker 1: May exactly. But have you seen I know we don't
Speaker 1: we don't endorse paparazzi. Of course we do not. But
Speaker 1: right now, Jacob A Laudie and Kendall Jenna are like
Speaker 1: having the basic Byron experience. They're at general store getting coffee,
Speaker 1: They're going out to dinner at such an such, They're
Speaker 1: going shopping in main street. It's winter, it's quiet there.
Speaker 2: It's kind of lovely, right, I think it's lovely. And
Speaker 2: they're very much wearing like hoodies and sunglasses and trying
Speaker 2: to not stand And am I anybody wearing a hoodie
Speaker 2: and sunglasses in Byron You're going to be like, Hey,
Speaker 2: that's Jacoble.
Speaker 1: That's a really famous Anyway, I digress because that's not
Speaker 1: who we're talking about. But anyway, Miranda Kerr is who
Speaker 1: we are talking about. Australian supermodel and her billionaire husband,
Speaker 1: Evan Spiegel. They popped up on Instagram and probably Snapchat.
Speaker 1: But who would know about that except for teenagers to
Speaker 1: tell us something surprising. Here is what Evan had to say.
Speaker 5: Everybody, Evan and Miranda here and today we are so
Speaker 5: excited because we're announcing a partnership with Undue medical debt
Speaker 5: to relieve over half a billion dollars of unpaid medical
Speaker 5: debt for more than two hundred and fifty thousand Californians.
Speaker 2: One of the reasons we wanted to share this directly
Speaker 2: is because if you happen to receive a letter in
Speaker 2: the mail letting you know your medical debt has been
Speaker 2: forgiven one, you should know it's real.
Speaker 1: Oh my gosh, it's not a scam. If you get
Speaker 1: a letter in the mail from Miranda Kirk telling you
Speaker 1: that she has paid your medical debt, it is not
Speaker 1: a scam. It is real.
Speaker 2: That is wild.
Speaker 1: Okay, I'll just give you a tiny bit of context,
Speaker 1: and then Amelia is going to tell me what this
Speaker 1: really means, because it's very American. I think what they're
Speaker 1: talking about is there is a nonprofit organization called Undo
Speaker 1: Medical Debt Right, and people donate to it, and it's
Speaker 1: not for profit organization that dedicates in buying up medical debt.
Speaker 1: So basically they buy out debt to let individuals be
Speaker 1: free of their medical debt, which is a big deal
Speaker 1: in the US. Amelia, We're not really used to, certainly
Speaker 1: in this current moment, tech billionaires doing things that just
Speaker 1: seem to be lovely things to do. Evan is worth
Speaker 1: a reported three billion, if not more than that. This
Speaker 1: is an incredible thing to do, right. It's a feel good,
Speaker 1: aussy story, but is it. No?
Speaker 3: I mean it's nice that they did it, and it's
Speaker 3: sort of like I bought an a copy of the
Speaker 3: Big Issue last week, and I think I should also
Speaker 3: get recognition for that. Is nice.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and I just want it known. Whenever I donate
Speaker 2: to a GoFundMe, I always include my name. You know
Speaker 2: how you choose to do it and plea I'm like, no, no, no,
Speaker 2: I'll put my full name so that anyone's scrolling through.
Speaker 1: Is that what Miranda and Evan are doing?
Speaker 2: That they've done and they go fundly, Yes, this is
Speaker 2: my thirty dollar donation and you can see my name
Speaker 2: next to it.
Speaker 3: So look, just a quick primer on how much this
Speaker 3: costs them. The headlines said that they had wiped out
Speaker 3: five hundred and fifty million dollars of medical debt. That's
Speaker 3: a lot. No, that's a lot. That is a lot.
Speaker 2: That's half a billion. It's as.
Speaker 3: Thank you the company, the nonprofit that they donated to.
Speaker 3: If you just go to their website, they say if
Speaker 3: you donate ten dollars, it wipes out one thousand dollars
Speaker 3: of debt. And the reason for that discrepancy is that basically,
Speaker 3: if you've got a hospital in the US and you
Speaker 3: can't afford it, they keeps you a bill and then
Speaker 3: you keep not paying, and then the hospital sells that
Speaker 3: debt to a debt collection agency and then they come
Speaker 3: after you and they know that you're never going to
Speaker 3: be able to pay the full amount because if you
Speaker 3: could pay the full amount, you wouldn't have been at
Speaker 3: the hospital uninsured anyway. So they're just like, give us anything, like,
Speaker 3: just give us as much money as you possibly can.
Speaker 1: And could this be for anything from you know, you
Speaker 1: got hit by a car and broke your leg, to
Speaker 1: cancer treatment.
Speaker 3: To having a baby, literally anything, And so the five
Speaker 3: hundred and fifty million is actually more like it probably
Speaker 3: costs them more like as little as five million, because
Speaker 3: I'm using the same ratio that the nonprofit has on
Speaker 3: their website. So five million dollars for Evan Spiegel and
Speaker 3: Miranda Kerr is equivalent to about two hundred dollars for
Speaker 3: someone who's on an average income, and like two hundred
Speaker 3: dollars is a lot, Like if I that's that's a
Speaker 3: lot of copies of the big issue. Like, I think,
Speaker 3: you know, good for them, two hundred dollars is quite
Speaker 3: a bit of money, But would you make a video
Speaker 3: congratulating yourself for giving two hundred dollars to a go
Speaker 3: fund me for instance.
Speaker 1: That's cynical though, right, because they're making a video, yes,
Speaker 1: to show that they did a good thing, but also
Speaker 1: to encourage other people to do a good thing. Right, No,
Speaker 1: aren't they Because they're raising awareness of undue.
Speaker 3: That's why they're doing it.
Speaker 1: And so they said, like they said, we did this,
Speaker 1: and then they said, if you're not aware of the
Speaker 1: great work on geo medical debt, do and then presumably
Speaker 1: other people can do it too. So it's like a promotion.
Speaker 3: Okay, yeah, I'm sure it's raising awareness. But there are
Speaker 3: also rumors that Evan Spiegel is planning a run to
Speaker 3: be governor of California, which is a very important political
Speaker 3: position in the US. It's what Ronald Reagan was, It's
Speaker 3: what Arnold Schwarzenegger was.
Speaker 1: Gavin Newsom is he the governor's Gavin?
Speaker 3: It's exactly what Gavin Newsom is. And one wonders if
Speaker 3: this is not part of a campaign to introduce US
Speaker 3: to this warm and cuddly Evan Spiegel tech billionaire, because look,
Speaker 3: I just have to mention that in April his company
Speaker 3: Snap laid off sixteen percent of its staff and said
Speaker 3: that they would have AI replaced those sixteen percent of
Speaker 3: staff and then their stock prices sored. I think there
Speaker 3: is one good billionaire in the world, and that one
Speaker 3: good billionaire is Mackenzie Scott, who was Jeff Bezos's ex
Speaker 3: Last year, she alone gave one third of all the
Speaker 3: philanthropic money in the United States, one third from one woman.
Speaker 3: She donated seven billion dollars in one year, and that
Speaker 3: is the equivalent of twenty thousand dollars for someone on
Speaker 3: an average income. Now that is what I call generosity.
Speaker 1: She also gave money to these guys, so did John Oliver,
Speaker 1: the medical debt people.
Speaker 3: And by the way, she didn't make a video about it,
Speaker 3: she just did it.
Speaker 1: No this look, this is exciting development for me in
Speaker 1: the political realm because now I'm imagining Miranda Curis first lady.
Speaker 2: She dressed very well.
Speaker 1: She would be great for that.
Speaker 2: I have been thinking Mirandaka has been around a bit lately,
Speaker 2: like you see her popping up doing a few interviews,
Speaker 2: and like, I feel like she kind of disappeared for
Speaker 2: a bit, and now she's she's.
Speaker 3: Not the skincare brand, right, Yeah.
Speaker 2: But I feel like she disappeared a bit in terms
Speaker 2: of like her own personal brand, whereas I've seen her
Speaker 2: re emerging talking about motherhood all of that stuff, And
Speaker 2: I wonder if that's also like emerging so that she
Speaker 2: can be.
Speaker 3: A first FIO, just so she can somewhat humoric months.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 3: No, look, that's cynical of me. It's lovely, it's lovely.
Speaker 1: Look, I know what you mean that You're like, this
Speaker 1: looks like a big thing, but for them it was
Speaker 1: a little thing. But aren't we generally positive and encouraging
Speaker 1: about the mega rich thinking about other people?
Speaker 3: You know? It comes back to taxes for me. I
Speaker 3: wonder how much taxes Evan speak Golt paid last year.
Speaker 3: I bet it was less than Prince Charles. Like, I
Speaker 3: just bet that he paid less taxes last year than
Speaker 3: King Charles.
Speaker 2: I sometimes the cynicism worries me because, as you say,
Speaker 2: Mackenzie Scott has given so much money charity, but she
Speaker 2: is also the victim of this cynicism. Like Elon Musk
Speaker 2: has tweeted that she it didn't make any sense. Basically,
Speaker 2: somebody tweeted that she has made the world worse by
Speaker 2: giving away that much money, and Elon Musk is like, yes,
Speaker 2: I'm afraid I agree. And it's like what I don't understand,
Speaker 2: And it's like we're muddying the water. Is so much
Speaker 2: about what is actually an ethical thing to do and
Speaker 2: not an ethical thing to do.
Speaker 3: Because Elon must tweeted something, isn't he just muddying everything? Yes?
Speaker 2: Yes, And speaking of Elon, you may remember the other
Speaker 2: week he became a trillionaire. He did very important, very
Speaker 2: important congrats he needed that notch on his belt, and
Speaker 2: a lot of commentary I saw at that time was
Speaker 2: about how a few years ago he put out a
Speaker 2: tweet basically saying, I will give the UN World Food
Speaker 2: Program billion dollars to solve world hunger if they can
Speaker 2: lay out how they would spend that money and actually
Speaker 2: solve it. And people people like Elon Musk love this
Speaker 2: strategy because it's like, I'm so smart, you guys, You
Speaker 2: guys try and be smart, like you guys, try and
Speaker 2: tell me how you'd actually solve this. But I think
Speaker 2: you're idiots. With money, so he put that out there,
Speaker 2: and then eventually the World Food Program did come back
Speaker 2: with a plan of exactly how they'd spend that money,
Speaker 2: and they said they could actually solve famine rather than
Speaker 2: world hunger, which are two different things. But because they
Speaker 2: responded in a separate Twitter thread and not the Twitter
Speaker 2: thread that Elon Musk had originally started, and Elon Musk
Speaker 2: said it had to be in that first Twitter thread,
Speaker 2: they were the conditions. He never responded or acknowledged it,
Speaker 2: so he just didn't donate his six billion dollars and
Speaker 2: instead he bought Twitter and rebranded it to X, which
Speaker 2: I think we can all agree has been really important
Speaker 2: for humanity and has stopped a lot of people's stuff.
Speaker 3: No, but you, the point you're making is like I
Speaker 3: should stop braining on their parade. It's just it's a
Speaker 3: lovely thing they did. It just makes me uncomfortable when
Speaker 3: I see rich people want my validation for doing the
Speaker 3: bare minimum what should be the bare minimum?
Speaker 2: I do think it's very important to break down exactly
Speaker 2: how much it actually costs them and what the motive
Speaker 2: may be for that kind of public statement.
Speaker 1: I'm just always happy that it's not just another yacht. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: when I was in Tasmania recently famously Tasmanian multimillionaire David Wells,
Speaker 1: bit of a controversial guy, made all his money and gambling.
Speaker 1: He freely admits terrible for the world, Like terrible for
Speaker 1: the world. He is atoned for that by building a
Speaker 1: world class art museum in that city and arguably resurrecting
Speaker 1: the economy of that entire state, increasing tourism, putting something
Speaker 1: really interesting out there. And he's on the record as
Speaker 1: saying I could have used all my money, all my
Speaker 1: gambling money, to buy yachts and more cars and all
Speaker 1: those things, but instead I wanted to do something interesting.
Speaker 1: Does he have selfish reasons for doing it? Yes. He
Speaker 1: likes art, he likes provocative stuff. He wants to have
Speaker 1: a legacy. He wants everyone to remember him when he's gone. Like,
Speaker 1: does it matter that it's a selfish reason if it
Speaker 1: has actually made the world better other than him just
Speaker 1: having a bigger boat. So where any time you have
Speaker 1: an example, particularly at the moment when we seem to
Speaker 1: be in the thrall of people who are richer than
Speaker 1: humans have ever been before, and they are too and
Speaker 1: they're more powerful than governments, and they're more powerful than companies,
Speaker 1: and they're choosing often to use that power in ways
Speaker 1: that many of us wouldn't think was that good for
Speaker 1: the world, Like at least one of them or two
Speaker 1: of them standing up every now and again and going,
Speaker 1: you know what, I also did this, Yeah, and.
Speaker 3: It's going to make a difference to hundreds of thousands
Speaker 3: of people.
Speaker 2: One argument I did see recently, and I saw it
Speaker 2: on Reddit, so you know, it's a very valid, research
Speaker 2: based argument was there was a question about why a
Speaker 2: few generations ago, particularly in America, a lot of the
Speaker 2: big names like Vanderbilts, like all of those Rockefellers, all
Speaker 2: of those were known for putting a whole lot of
Speaker 2: money into education or health or building hospital wings, whatever.
Speaker 2: And I'm sure that's the case all over the world,
Speaker 2: but particularly in America. And someone said, why is it
Speaker 2: that we've got We've now got all these people and
Speaker 2: Elon Musk is focused on another planet instead of actually
Speaker 2: doing these initiatives that could make society better. And there
Speaker 2: was a really interesting argument that was, like again a
Speaker 2: cynical argument that a few generations ago, people, the very
Speaker 2: rich people, did that to create a bit of an
Speaker 2: argument against the tax system. It's like, don't tax me,
Speaker 2: because look at all the great things I'm already doing.
Speaker 2: And so I do understand your point that if you
Speaker 2: look at Evan Spiegel and you think, well, mate, if
Speaker 2: you just paid fair taxes, then a lot of the
Speaker 2: social issues that you're now trying to repair could have
Speaker 2: actually could have actually been supported.
Speaker 1: I can't believe that I'm defending billionaires here. This seems
Speaker 1: very strange for me. But one of the things is
Speaker 1: is I'm sure that some of those very very rich
Speaker 1: people say I do all kinds of philanthropic things, I
Speaker 1: just don't tell everybody about it. Taylor Swift is one
Speaker 1: of those people, right. She rarely tells people about the
Speaker 1: philanthropic things she does, but it sneaks out every now
Speaker 1: and again that she, yeah, she did funded a program
Speaker 1: in that city she was playing in, or did whatever.
Speaker 1: The thing is is, if they tell you, they're damned.
Speaker 1: If they don't tell you, you assume they're just buying yachts.
Speaker 1: So well, somebody think of the poor simple ring.
Speaker 3: I mean, McKenzie's got has threaded that needle, right, because
Speaker 3: she does release the report every year that says where
Speaker 3: her money is going. She is not releasing videos telling
Speaker 3: us all about how great she is. So I think
Speaker 3: there is an option.
Speaker 1: That is all we have time for on this Monday.
Speaker 1: It is our last week of you, Clare Stevens, before
Speaker 1: you go off to have baby boy. Last Monday, we
Speaker 1: are going to treasure every moment of it.
Speaker 2: I can't believe I'm going to miss Taylor Swift's wedding.
Speaker 1: I bet yours quietly happy. She's like, no texts from
Speaker 1: the first at four am on Saturday morning.
Speaker 2: I'll save my PhD for something else exactly.
Speaker 1: But we're going to have a great week until you go.
Speaker 1: Thank you out louders for being here with us as always.
Speaker 1: Oh thank you out louders who all responded to the
Speaker 1: conversation we had on Friday about whether or not it
Speaker 1: was okay to pick lemons from someone else's tree.
Speaker 2: The radical suggestion to knock on someone's door and ask
Speaker 2: if you can have one of their lemons. This is
Speaker 2: why we love out Louders, because I never would have
Speaker 2: thought of that.
Speaker 1: It's true. The general consensus was no to pick a
Speaker 1: flowers from other people's gardens, but that you should ask,
Speaker 1: and people love to share lemons, so there you go.
Speaker 1: I don't because my lemon tree only has two lemons
Speaker 1: on it, and if anyone stole one of those lemons,
Speaker 1: I would cry. But that's because I'm not a very
Speaker 1: good gardener yet. Anyway, I digress. We will see you
Speaker 1: on Wednesday, and Mia and I will be back in
Speaker 1: your ears with scoreless gossip tomorrow.
Speaker 3: Goodbye.
Speaker 2: Mommer acknowledges the traditional owners of the land on which
Speaker 2: we've recorded this podcast.