Vice is the Media Show, with.
Jack outing Hello and welcome to the Media Show. There's a lot to discuss tonight, including deepening chaos in America and the end of two major Australian TV shows, and of course, the media's role in encouraging a young activist to try and enter a war zone. But first La burns yet again, and Australian TV crews have rushed to the action to let us know what's really going on.
It's not like when Warrior and it's just road testing.
The trigger for the president protest is spitting on police.
They sped, We hit, They hit all right and hard.
Up Here we go, There we go. Pepper spray, pepper spray. We're moving backwards, guys, We're moving backwards. Pepper spray. They mean business, these guys. The pepper spray, the tear gas is in the air. It just gets to the back of your throat, straight up into your nose.
Yes, that's typically how pepper spray works, But one reporter ended up becoming the story herself after one police officer fight a rubber bullet into her leg.
Rubber bullets of protesters moving them on through the heart of LA.
And a short while later Nines, Karl Stefanovic was doing a frame by frame breakdown of what went wrong.
So if you slow the footage down, you can see the officer aim his weapon, pulling the trigger while Lauren had her back to him. She has her back to him, she has a microphone and is standing in front of a camera. We don't know what was near her, We don't know what threat was so imminent it required a cop to discharge his weapon on a reporter or whether he meant to shoot her, But it sure looks.
Like that to me, and Carl is correct.
It is hard to know what was going on behind find the reporter or out of the shot. But the officer did snap his weapon around and point it straight at her before firing.
Did he know she was media?
Impossible to say, that is unless, of course, you are our prime minister.
He said targeted?
Was that how it was raised by the Strange government that she was seemingly targeted by police?
She was clearly identified, was clearly identified. You know, there was no ambiguity. She wasn't wearing a trackie, She's wearing a helmet and something I identified her as media and.
It is not acceptable.
So Albanezi is turning this into a diplomatic incident, and he doesn't even seem to have his facts right. The reporter wasn't wearing a helmet, a crucial, crucial piece of information that two GiB has been fulleda and seized on.
I'm not sure what footage the PM was watching because Lauren didn't have any media signage that I could see, and she certainly wasn't wearing a helmet. What helmet was he talking about? The PM says she was clearly identified as media, she was wearing a helmet and something that identified her as media. Well, he's got himself very confused on that front because the footage does not support the PM's comments.
Well.
Joining me to discuss is Sky News contributor James Bold and Managing editor at The Australian Darren Davidson. James, let's start with you, let's bring you in. I don't know what happened in this situation. I don't know if the police officer knew that this woman was a journalist and then took a shot, or it was a mistake and they were aiming at something that was offscreen. But for the Prime Minister to potentially be well, he has already,
he said, he raised it already directly with America. But we know he's going to be in proximity of Donald Trump. To not have these basic facts right and to talk with such certainty is a little bit worrying for me.
Yeah, I think, first off, like, yes, she's not a helmet, but you're standing in front of a camera's have a microphone in the backs to where there's other cameras. There are some bad looking people around her at the time. But I don't think like that's clearly a meltdown. But as you say, for Albanesi to raise it with US officials as if the meltdown of that officer is officially sanctioned by the US government as something that they wanted
to see happen. I look forward to him bringing that energy next time the Chinese warships get a little too close to our maybe someone gets hurt. Maybe he might bring that up with someone involved with China. Who's to say this is the new way that he wants to do foreign relations. But yeah, to your point, I mean, between this sanctioning Israeli ministers, Tariff's defense spending, this G seven meeting is going to be a bliedbath.
For ALBERENESI definitely.
I mean, just had he not watched the footage, I mean to say that with such certainty is really really strange. Now, Darren, let's bring you in here. What do you make of this whole situation.
I don't think you can really tell from one single angle what that police officer was looking at. We know that she's roughly in his eye line, but you really need other angles to have a full picture of what he's looking at in that moment. I find it hard to believe I could be wrong that he directed his gun with that rubber bullet at the journalist. I'm glad Lawren's okay, she's on her and she's returned to work.
But I just I'm just a bit skeptical about whether it was his intention to actually strike her with that rubber bullet with intent. I find that hard to believe. I think one of the other things that's kind of struck me about the coverage more generally is just this constant comparison to the nineteen ninety two LA riots, where you know, there was real violence and there was lots of life, and there was kind of deep upheaval and
carnage in communities these riots are very, very different. That's the thing that's really struck me about the coverage, the media coverage of what's happening at the moment on the West Coast. Just these kind of really shallow, kind of flawed comparisons to what happened in nineteen ninety two. I don't think that's quite right.
Yeah, no, I agree.
Moving on now, two major shows have been canned, including Channel ten's The Project.
Great to have you here.
We begin tonight, of course, sorry, we begin tonight.
With some big news. Fantastic. I think I got the tone wrong. Oh it's not all right? Okay, Well, what am I going to do with this? Onet me nineteen dollars? You really missed that meeting.
That was a shame.
No, we are here to announce you're right there, I'm all right.
Typical Project style. I should take us off air after.
After sixteen years and what nearly four and a half thousand episodes, the Project will very soon be no more.
And of course, this news came shortly after it was revealed that the ABC would acts its weekly panel show Q and A. James want to bring you back in. Let's start with the Project. That show really symbolizes the biggest sin that you can commit. I think in television it's just don't be boring. And it became this very sanitized, safe product where people would stand up and say things like, you know, I stand against crime and I'm not afraid to, you know, to make that very controversial stand.
Yeah, it is something you say a lot.
Yeah, yeah, every time.
I'm blown away by the bravery of you. But yeah, it's just like it's that in the sense. I mean there weren't good journalists on there. I mean, you know, Steve Rice's a colleague of ours, he's doing great work, and there's some other people in there that are great. But I think the other side to me is if you pitch the project today, there's no chance that it would be greenlit.
It's kind of.
Out there because it was kind of out there because it was just there already and it was too hard to change. But like a one hour aimed at the under thirty five market, six thirty news and pop culture, like I just I don't see on a free to wear TV, which no one in that age demographic is watching anymore. Like, if you can't pitch it again today, why would you have it?
Yeah, it's a good point, Darren. Do you agree with that? Yeah, I do.
What began, as you know, quite innovative formats became not only boring, and they've been boring for some time. Those two shows, they became kind of echo chambers that were less about inquiry and more about affirmation. So I think audiences can just kind of tell that they're stacked and they're about advocacy, not having a genuine kind of contest of ideas, and I think that and I think the key word here is trust. So they kind of just lost the trust of their audiences. They became boring, and
the audience has turned off. And we've seen the same on some of the public broadcasts in other markets as well. The BBC in the UK has a similar format, and you know that's had very, very sharply declining ratings as well,
and I think for similar reasons. When they just stacked these panels with activists and they become about advocacy, audiences just tune out, I think, And that's what we've had here with both of these formats, And as you say, they're not interesting, they're not engaging, and they're ultimately just boring.
Well, Q and A is a really interesting one because you know, James, I remember when it was much must watch television. You had to watch it to be across the news cycle. Every it was on the Monday, and every Tuesday there'd be stories off the back of it, things that happened. And then it just kind of it just kind of you know, fitted out in a very sad way. But I think it's just it is the one sort of format that a national broadcaster should have.
And can you imagine working on a show like Q and A. And I think that it did need a revamp, right, but you're getting sacked or the show's like off air, and you've got a TikTok division just churning out the most ridiculous, absurd, just puerile kind of content and for a billion dollars a year, they cannot even staff a weekly panel show.
Yeah, it seems disgraceful to me.
I get Look, no one's gonna stand up for the ABC TikTok division on this program. I'm not going to do that. But what I would say, like back with those said, with the projects, like again, if you're pitching Q and A again, a one hour weekly chat show with five political figures, you know, debating I mean, that's eighteen years ago revolutionary Today it's everywhere. But so when you pitch at eighteen years ago, you can have a live audience, you can build a nightly program around this.
But when there's podcasts, when there's you know, twenty four hour news programs like this, it doesn't have the luster. But what I think ABC Q and A never got that it wasn't it wasn't an event anymore. You didn't need a full studio audings, you didn't need questions from the audience, because again, that's X Now, it's not revolutionary, it's not cutting edge. If you downsize Q and A to just be a panel show, maybe it's still alive.
But when you need to fill a studio and you need to do all these other things, it's just you can't have that in.
Well yeah, I mean they don't have a profit incentive, right. And this is a thing where I think the ABC
is making an absolute critical mistake. I think Hu Marx is really blundered on this one, because you should be able to put a product there which is intellectual and it's interesting, and for me watching Q and A, I think the problem with it was every week you've got the same tials on a couple of labor people are very moderate conservative in inverted commas, so to speak, and it's a sanitized program where people are saying predictable, nice things that they want to be applauded for on Twitter.
And you can't watch it because there's no adversarial nature to the show. There's no debate, there's nothing interesting of substance, And it's not the media.
Agree.
I think when balance, I agree, it's not the medium. When balance gives way to editorializing, you lose the credibility. You lose credibility, and you lose the trust of the audience. And look, certainly shows like that, in formats like that are challenged by the rise of audio and podcasts and podcasts and other formats and things like that. But there's plenty of examples of these formats being successful on other linear channels, those that have reinvented themselves and still remained
kind of balanced and invigorating for audiences. But yeah, I think it's as you say, it's less about the medium and challenges in this disrupted media landscape and more about the fact that they had just lost the trust of their audiences and become bory.
What an absolute shame.
Moving on though, because Gretatonberg, the media darling who has shifted from climate activism to the plight of the Palestinian well. She tried to get into Gaza by sailing there in what has been dubbed the selfie boat, but as expected, she was detained by Israel before she could even get very close.
It's really forces have taken control of a ship carrying Gretaitunberg and eleven other pro Palestinian activists. The Madeline, which was carrying a small but symbolic amount of aid for Gaza, was boarded as it tried to break a naval blockade.
It's now being towed two in Israeli paus. Videos and images were posted by the crew of the madly And as it tried to reach Gaza, including this image showing the crew seated on the vessel, all wearing life jackets with their hands in the air, after which the volunteers said a white irritant was being sprayed onto the decks. There's a drone.
There's a drone right above.
We are getting into pret one right now.
Take cover.
Now you might have missed it, but did you hear the reporter's characterization of Greta's mission a small but symbolic amount of aid. The media has encouraged, applauded, and glorified this woman to the point where she nearly entered a dangerous war zone. She would have achieved nothing, but to some journalists the symbolism would have been worth it. Let's bring the panel in to discuss symbolism. It's a value judgment. It's editorializing, right for the reporter just to sit there
being like, that's symbolic. Well, symbolism has to kind of connote some sort of meaning, and the meaning is positive. Right, So she's adding that there's this vacuous, self serving selfie boat cruising into a war zone with people that just should not be there for their own safety.
We've got the.
Media just glorifying it and then labeling it as as symbolic.
Yeah, Like, first off, she said, now there was a white heritinto on the boat. I thought that was Gretaitunberg. But aside from that, like, let's not think that at absolutely, at absolutely no point did anything happen in this whole journey that Gretaitunberg wasn't happy with. She went on in a small boat. She could have got like telling me that she got work around her, she got a free sandwich.
You're telling me the network around Greta Tunberg couldn't have walked out for a bigger boat that would have been able to carry more aid. But you want the smaller boat because when the Israeli defense sports get on you, you look like the tiny, you know, humble people that getting ganged up on. Then you go to being kidnapped and you're asked to watch an octobers En video, you don't do it, and then they just put you on a
plane home so easy as you can. Everything happened exactly the way gretitombo.
It's just propagamada. And I saw a lot of journalists repeating the kidnapping line. It's just absurd and they should have more integrity than that.
Darren, final thoughts on this for you agreed.
I mean, it's really disappointing to see so many parts of the media take, you know, sort of take that self proclaimed activism face value. And I think also what they did there just undermined, you know, more grounded diplomatic and aid efforts that were actually happening on the ground.
And as you pointed out, as well like their refusal to refusal to actually watch that October the eighth documentary really disappointing to hear they you know, they're not journalists, they are activists, but they should make an effort to you know, paint the full picture and show both sides of this terrible conflict that continues to go on.
Aaron Davidson, James Bolt, thank you so much for joining us. We're going to take a quick break, but when we return, how the US media is encouraging rioters to burn down their own cities. Welcome back to Stars and Gripes, and this is the show where we pick apart the a gender driven media in the US and call out activism masquerading as journalism. Now, after watching the coverage of these violent riots all across America, I've come to one conclusion.
You do not hate these activist journalists enough. They have emboldened rioters, provided a moral framework for them to burn down their own city. And it isn't the fault of marauding criminals. It is Donald Trump's fault for daring to deport illegal immigrants and make the mob angry.
Right now, there are more troops deployed to Los Angeles than there are deployed in Syria and Iraq combined.
Let me just repeat that, because.
I've been thinking about this all day since one of our amazing producers shared this with me. There are more troops deployed to Los Angeles than there are deployed in Syria and Iraq combined. And right now, Donald Trump is also doing everything he can to make Los Angeles look and feel like a war zone. That's on purpose, that's what he's trying to do.
Well.
That's MSNBC's Jen Saki. She's Joe Biden's former press secretary who has stopped spinning democratic talking points for a living. To spin democratic talking points for a living, Trump.
Has deployed four thousand federalized National Guard troops and seven hundred active duty Marines to Los Angeles, and the reality on the ground is that the protests that Trump sent these thousands of members of the military to deal with are both largely peaceful and primarily isolated, with an an incredibly small section of the city. You see that tiny speck on the map that is the area we're talking about.
All of that footage.
If you have seen of cars burning down, bricks through windows, stores looted, and scorched chaos left in the wake of rioters. Well, it doesn't exist. According to Saki, do not believe your lying eyes. Those cars are just peacefully burning. And I'm not sure the point she's trying to make about the curfew zone being small and therefore the riots are not happening. The two facts are completely unrelated. A geographic area can be small and still violent, but all of that aside.
The people who are really to blame for the escalation in violence and for the spread of the riots are the journalists who offer a moral justification for the action. As protests were being planned in Chicago, the local paper was running headlines like this. The journalists and local politicians are literally encouraging protests because it serves their joint political goals. They don't get to decide that legal immigrants won't be deported. There was an election on this and their side lost.
They have to accept it, not violently resist.
NATO press conference, Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson made clear he also wasn't going to back down and urge the people of his city to do the same, saying, quote, I'm counting on all of Chicago to resist in this moment because whatever particular vulnerable group is targeted today, another group will be next.
How can any reasonable person hear these media reports, read these headlines and not draw the conclusion that they want you to protest, they want you to resist, and they want you to cause chaos and damage because it helps them and it helps them make the argument that Trump is militant and overreaching in trying to stop the chaos. Well, joining me to discuss now is Sky News contributor Caroline
de Russo. Caroline, what do you make of the way that the media has reported on the riots, particularly this phrase resist, the fact that they are pushing out a line that it is not only morally okay, but it's the morally correct position to resist, physically resist.
If it wasn't so serious, it would be hilarious, Jack, Like, it would actually be hilarious. This is the sort of thing you'd actually expect from some kind of you know, satire or whatever. But unfortunately, as we've come to know and love with a lot of activist journalism, particularly at
the US, it's not satire and they're serious. The simple fact of the matter is that there are laws around borders, and there are laws around immigration, and like you said in your editorial, the American people decided, well, we'd like those laws to be laws again, rather than just kind of opaque guidelines that you may opt in or out of enforcing. So essentially, what ICE is doing is just enforcing the law of the land, the law that as
a general rule keeps things pretty peaceful. So this whole idea that somehow that law shouldn't be enforced, and the narrative in particular for me, jack around talking about these as vulnerable communities. Can we also talk about well, we're not just talking about everyday people here. We are talking about people who have violated federal immigration law, but then also on top of that people that have gone on
to commit violent crime and other sorts of offenses. And I don't think that a narrative around calling that a vulnerable community. Well, it's not accurate and it's also not appropriate.
But the way that they have pitched this as some sort of moral argument is in a sense to take away from the fact that the protest is against something one that is legal, which is the enforcement of the law, but also in a way of trying to bait the federal government, and that there has become very obvious and the simple fact in so far as California is concerned, Jack, is if those protests were peaceful, there wouldn't have been
an issue. But the California government lost control of its own law and order, and that is simply the only reason why the federal government had to take action in order to protect those federal law enforcement officers. So there's lots of little slices taken here and there to suit a very convenient narrative, But when you actually lay it all out on the table, the journalists in this case are very severely left wanting.
Well said well.
The great thinker of our generation, Kim Kardashian, has weighed into the riots. Growing up in La I've seen how deeply immigrants are woven into the fabric of this city. They are our neighbors, friends, classmates, coworkers, and family. No matter where you fall politically, it's clear that our communities thrive because of the contribution of immigrants. We can't turn a blind eye when fear and injustice keep people from
living their lives freely and safely. Now I actually agree with a lot of that, but I think the issue is that Kardashian is conflating immigration, which has broad support in the community with ilegal immigration, which is not tolerated by any country in the world except, for some reason pockets in America.
Now.
The Assistant Department of Homeland Security Secretary Trisha McLachlin appeared to make this point when she responded Kim Kardashian, which one of these convicted child molesters, murderers, drug traffickers, and rapists, would you like to stay in the country now, Caroline, let's bring you back in because you did sort of.
Make this point a bit earlier.
It is more complex than just this perceived war and immigration. That's not what this is about. This is about borders, this is about protecting national security. It's about the will of the people that did vote in this administration to specifically do this, and it was the fact that we
did have undocumented people that were committing crimes. There are people that had been murdered, there were being children that have been victimized, and we're seeing a conflation between something which is, you know, completely accepted immigration and we're refusing to say that the problem is actually the illegal immigration.
Well, that's exactly the case. And when I read that to it, I was like the bits that are missing here. Actually the really important bits, the really important nuce as to why all this is occurring in the first place. No one has an issue broadly with the concept of immigration. It happens all over the world. Sometimes there's a question around is it too much or is it too little? That's fine, but it's broadly accepted. And obviously, how do
you think I got here, Jack? You know, my family came here in the nineteen fifties, and all our migrant communities they bring something you know, cultural or worker or whatever, and it does it adds to our society. The thing that is I think particularly egregious about the comment that she makes is the fact that the social issues and the violence and the community safety, which is the other thing Jack, is not something that she has to live with. It's to live in her in her rarefied air, her
very safety. I'm sure she's got walls and guards and all those sorts of things that she is not, you know, in danger every other day, in danger of the consequences of illegal immigration, you know, like you like you said, the violence, you know, offenses against children, that the drugs, all of those sorts of things are not things which she has to live with So it's very very cute to sit up there, you know, in your rarefied air, to suggest that this actually isn't a problem when you
have no idea how the other half live.
Yeah, well said, Well more celebrity reactions. The terminator has entered the fray. Arnold Schwarzenegger is not happy. Were journalists reporting on these riots and people filming them because well, it could hurt tourism.
They make it out do the war zone, the whole Los Angeles, the whole city or the county. And the fact of the matter is maybe zero point zero one percent of the area of Los Angeles has problems and there's a protest. Yeah, And so I think that this is important for people to know because I don't want all of a sudden tourism to suffer in Los Angeles because what they see in television, because the media sometimes shows it as if the whole Los Angeles is a big war zone, which isn't really the case.
None of Los Angeles is or war.
This wouldn't happen if the politicians would do the work.
Two things, again, this argument that a geographically small zone means it can't be violent. Obviously, it's a flawed argument, but also his concern is not the fact that the riots are happening, but rather the people can see that they are happening.
Now, Caroline, it's it's.
A strange point to make, because surely you would be saying everyone go home, please go home, don't burn down your own community. These are business owners, by the way, I'm sure some of these business owners are immigrants themselves that they're burning down. I'm sure that there's victims of these riots that impact that community that everyone is vacuously pretending to be standing up for. But instead of that, he's saying, well, no, it's the media's fault for showing you that burning car.
What do you think, Well, look, I'm not sure that looting an apple storey is going to save anyone for deportation. So we have seen a fair bit of that sort of footage. It is happening, and like you said, whether it's a small area or a large area, it is occurring. It is the media's job to report it. It's also the media's job to report accurately about the circumstances of
that occurring. So I don't have any particular issue if the media says something, well, look this is confined to X part of LA or a certain number of blocks in LA, that that just gives context to what is actually happening. The bit that I do agree with him is is that the politicians have to do the work. And the simple fact of the matter is if Biden had done his job, and if Newson had a done his job, well, then we wouldn't be having this conversation in the first place.
Caroline Russo, thank you so much for your insights. A quick break, but when we return, we sit down with media watchdog columnist Jared Henderson. Welcome back. Joining me now as he does each and every week, is Sky News Australia's media watchdog columnist Jared Henderson.
Thank you for joining us.
Pleasure.
Now we've got to grab for you to react to ABC News Breakfast. How do we think the Bridget Brennan responds when somebody is a Trump critic.
All of these represent violations of the rule of law and the constitution that take the US down from that consolidated liberal democracy status to a more middling competitive authoritarian regime that's closer to something like Hungary currently.
Well wow, well yeah, when I was watching it, I thought wow myself earlier, Bridge of Brennan had raised the issue of fascism, and when mister Grumbash raised this issue of authoritarianism, she just goes, wow, just what I wanted to hear. Is a bit like the Australian football team had had kicked a goal or something, Wow, as terrific.
So it's an infatuation with comments, isn't it.
Yeah, it's not.
There's no analysis. I mean, you don't say why do you say that? Or I think that's a good idea, or perhaps you might consider this year does go wow, like you scored a goal.
Which they do in other cases. We've actually got some examples later on, but normally they put qualifications on if they don't like it. But if somebody sits there and says that Trump is an evil authoritarian dictator, all you can just muster is just a simple wow.
And the other problem is the lack of historical knowledge. I mean, anyone who understands anything about Europe in the first half of the twentieth century knows what fascism is.
It was manifest in Italy in Germany.
But the idea that how however much you like or dislike Trump, has nothing to do with fascism, and let's fascism just means someone you don't like or don't agree with.
That's probably well, we've spoken about this before.
It's the watering down of the English language as well, and it trivializes. That's why I hate the far right label when it's clearly just somebody who's you know, more right wing than there, because right far right has a connotation of they're basically Nazis, they're genetic supremacists and they want to murder disabled people. Yet we're using that word for somebody that maybe has an issue with mass immigration. Yeah, yeah, Well moving on Malcolm Turnbull Orcus obviously some issues there.
But Malcolm Turbull, they've wheeled him out and he's found it very easy to get a bit of airtime.
In fact, you've posted its time to wake up. Who needs to wake up? Malcolm Turnbull?
And why well.
We need to wake up in Australia.
I mean, frankly, there is a denial of reality in Australia.
I mean there is a very high.
Prospect, very high probabilit prospect that we will end up with no submarines in this deal.
Well, Turnbulls sort of got an open door to the ABC. Whenever he's got a thought, either they ring him or he rings them, and he's in so yesterday on the World Today he was talking about this and then he got another go on seven thirty last night. And what no one really put to him with any great strength
is that he's an antagonist. I mean, right, whatever you say about Orcus the submarine deal, he's an antagonist because he wanted to go with the French deal, where you'd move a nuclear submarine to a conventional submarine.
Many people thought that wouldn't work.
In any event, the Morrison government, with the approval of the Labor Opposition, went for Orcus. Now Malcolm Turnbull's very embittered about this and he's always happy to have a go at Scott Morrison who was the former Prime minister, or of people like Richard Miles, who he calls them. Last night on seven thirty, he didn't say the deputy prime Minister and the former Prime ministry. He spoke about Richard and Scott and all this sort of demeaning terms,
and substantially on neither program was he confronted. Now, I have no objection to Malcolm Turnbull rocking up to the ABC sitting down with someone on the other side of the table who understands about as much about it as he does, who can have a discussion.
But you don't have that.
You just have the preaching of an antagonist, which is what you had last time. So there was Malcolm Turble some years ago talking about miserable ghosts who spoke about things for politics, And there's never been a more ghostly, miserable person that I've seen who's an ex politician in recent years.
I mean, he really does can't stop.
Yeah, it's journalistic slight of hand, and we'll talk about very soon about when the ABC does choose to put a qualification on. But there is a deliberate choice to get somebody on who's anti orchus three times, as you've pointed out, for that program, and they're not offer the context about why maybe politically they don't like the ideas, So does that color the langue, which does that add
any nuance? And nuance only really seems appropriate when it's a conservative viewpoint that they don't like.
Yes, I don't like it.
I mean essentially, well, it was embraced by the Labor Party, but I mean it's Richard.
Miles from the labor right. They don't like the labor right.
I mean, they're like the airBC people like Degreenes, they like the tills, they.
Love the tills, left the tills.
They like the labor left, but they don't like the labor right, and they don't like the Coalition obviously. So when they criticize the Labor Party, if they do, it's always from the left perspective, and you're seeing it here.
Well, Sally Sarup, she's interviewed Dennis Ross, who's the former US diplomatic has worked for president's Bush, Clinton Obama, very experienced. Let's have a listen to see how this interview is handled.
But even if there is disruption and theft by Hamas, should the aid be pushed through anyway?
I have a problem with providing a that allows Hamas to maintain its control because in maintaining its control, the suffering of Palestinians is guaranteed.
Dennis Ross will need to leave it there. Thank you for your time this morning on breakfast.
Sure, glad to do it.
By way.
It's Dennis Ross, their former US peace negotiator and Special Middle East Coordinator under Presidents Bush, Clinton and Obama, and last month the United Nations World Food Program said there was no evidence that Hamas was stealing food aid in Gaza.
It's extraordinary. It's to say to the audience, Hey, that guest who we just listened to, they're a liar and there is no evidence for what they were saying.
You just made it up.
Why would you not put the proposition to the expert you're interviewing. Why cut off the interview, wait a few seconds and then say what they just said is well, this was a.
Very rare experience.
I mean, Dennis Ross is a very well regarded for American diploma, former American diplomat, and here you had a very senior person criticizing Hamas. This is absolutely rare on the ABC and also criticizing Hamas is stopping food getting and food and medicine getting to Pellas, Indians and Gaza, which they are doing, which they are doing. And when Dennis Ross says that, and he knows what he's talking about,
you don't really challenge him on it. You just sort of wait for him to go away, and then you come back and say, hang on a minute, the un which he already criticized, or you an organization says you're not right, and so.
He could have account of you.
He could say there is an issue with the with the with with that report, there is an issue with that viewpoint.
He could have but he wasn't given the opportunity. No, he did say some of the things earlier, and so on my Media Watchdog blog coming out soon putting a full transcript of the whole interview and people can read and form their own conclusions. Was a very good analysis by mister Ross. And then he just gets wiped and a bit overwhelmingly. You have you have pro Hamas or
pro Palestinian views on the ABC. You get someone who's intelligent and criticism I mean of Hamas and that's how he's treated well.
It is a brilliant column you do for us in every single week on Sky News. Talking to au Jared Henderson, thank you so much for joining us. That's all the time we have for tonight, but we will be back the same time next week and up next is Newsnight.