Vince is the Media Show.
Hello and welcome to the Media Show. I'm Caroline Derusso.
Coming up on the show tonight.
And the ABC's new managing director starts in the job on Monday.
Is he going to wrestle the Beast? Or can we expect more of the same?
CNN, Well, it drops its bundle this week with example after example of everyone and everything being racist, fascists and transphobic. And the ABC's Four Corners does a hit piece on the Australian War Memorial and as per usual, being a bit light on for alternative perspectives. But first, the Australian Energy Regulator has released a draft decision to lift price caps for hundreds of thousands of customers on energy company's.
Default offers from July one.
And what was the rationale from The Sydney Morning Herald in its reporting, Well, a year of low wind and rain, sudden cold, generator breakdowns and elevator fossil fuel costs pushed up wholesale prices. Now cap rises could increase household power bills by up to two hundred dollars a year, and the SMH did acknowledge that this was a problem for Anthony Albanezi and that prices had risen despite assurances from
Albo and Co prior to the last election. Anyway, it went on to refer to comments by the Energy Minister which went totally unchallenged. It said Bowen said more renewables were needed to cut prices and attacked the Opposition for its energy policy, which includes building nuclear power plants across the country and limiting the rollout of renewable energy. Here is what Bowen had to say in his presser.
One of the reasons for this decision today is spikes caused by coal fire power stations breaking down. Not a day in the last two years have we had a call fire POWERstation not breakdown somewhere in Australia. Not talking about plan maintenance. I'm talking about unexpected breakdowns which sends the energy prices spike.
Anyway, back to the SMH and it went on to say that Dutton has criticized the government's eggs in one basket renewables policy and set a balanced energy mix including gas and nuclear was needed. He has claimed that the opposition's nuclear policy would cut energy bills by forty four percent by twenty fifty and that experts, including the CSIRO have rejected that claim, stating that a grid dominated by renewables and backed by massive expansion in transmission lines, pumped
hydro and batteries would be significantly cheaper. But SMH readers would know that the reasoning colon gass are so expensive is because of labour's crippling net zero laws. A mistruth repeated that renewables are bringing down power prices. Of course they're quick to debunk Dutton, but offer no scrutiny of the Energy Minister.
Interesting.
The piece was published at nine oh six am yesterday, but was heavily updated.
At six twenty two pm last night.
Thankfully, Simon Benson at The Australian pulled the hend and break up on the Energy Minister, noting that Bowen's default position on prices is to blame the industry rather than acknowledge the pressure's labor policy has injected into the market, and signs off by stating that the Albanesi government has had three years to fix this problem. Subsidizing power bills
is not the long term answer. Well, that sounds pretty logical, But here is Bowen's solution, again unchallenged by the SMH and other soft left media.
I think these figures show an important opportunity to remind Australians that you can do better and shop around for a better deal. Now we've made it easier and the Albanezi government to switch energy providers. And there are two websites which are very.
Useful joining me now on the Panelisky News contributor Louise Roberts and Radio to Double C hosts Steven China Tempo Louise. Look, we can all see that power prices are going up. It's happening before our very eyes, and yet no substantive criticism of the minister. How can that sort of balance not be present given the significance of this particular energy issue.
Well, the federal government and Chris Bowen's failure to deliver on their promise of a two hundred and seventy five dollars cut to our power bills is shameful to all Australians and I would include readers of the SMH in that so. Feasibly, they should expect their publication of choice to challenge the government on this, rather than use it as an opportunity to pump out propaganda about how coal fired power is to blame for these sky high power prices.
It just beggars belief that they haven't actually gone in and actually addressed the key issue, which is why is our power so expensive? And what's the government doing about it when they claim to have fixed it, when of course clearly they haven't. You think you're reading it's some sort of alternative publication rather than a mainstream newspaper.
And Steve, we just need to shop around. That's it, nothing more. I find that obviously extraordinary from the Energy minister. But we know that renewable energy isn't cheaper, and we know that manufacturing nations across.
The world rely on nuclear.
How is that context, which quite frankly is pretty important.
It's always missed or diminished.
Well, there's a couple of points here.
I mean, the first thing is shop around for what for a bunch of energy providers who have all seen their cost go up, So no matter where you go, your energy prices are going up. And how's that two hundred and seventy five dollars discount going.
By the way. But the reality is here that I think a lot of media.
Outlets are afraid to challenge the CSIRO who have got their figures wrong and anybody who digs a little bit deeper into how they've come up with their numbers, you can actually see the flaw in their modeling. But I think, you know, I've always maintained a lot of journalists are lazy and they'll just use whatever drops in their lap, and if the CSIRO comes out and says the sky
is green, then that's what they'll run with. But if you dig a little bit deeper and find out why the sky is green, you see that the modeling doesn't actually take into account the full cost of the renewables roll out, particularly the rewiring of Australia, and it doesn't
also allow for the longevity of nuclear power plants. But the thing that Chris Bowen misses here is the reason that col fight power stations are breaking down is because there's no certainty for the operators to actually maintain them because they don't know when they're going to be switched off.
Onto our next topic, and the Trump arrangement syndrome afflicted lefties while they've joined ALBO to have asok about the USA's position on tariffs, carrying on like jilted lovers, how can they not care about us anymore? Trump is such a big meaning now. Matthew Not from the SMH went with the special friendship is over.
Trump doesn't care about Australia.
Also at the SMH, Peter Hartch's piece was titled Trump has done us a favor by showing us where we stand during peacetime. Nikki Hutley the Guardian proffered Trump's senseless tariffs will extend the economic malaise felt by so many in Australia and around the world. According to the Guardian, this is a painful global lesson into why we should listen to rather than denigrate the experts. I think there's a few people who would be.
To differ anyway. And Bernard Keane or he got the strops on.
As well, because albow, he must ignore the boot lickors, get off his knees and punch back at Trump. Meanwhile, thankfully, others took a more practical approach, pointing out that while some of these should be a wake up call for the government, the correct response is to get serious about improving the Australian economy, diversifying our trade, and there is no point in bashing the Yanks. For example, Robert Godlibson, as per usual, arrived with some common sense. The US
snubs Australia, but there are ways. Here's how we can offset.
Trump's tariffs, Steve.
Look, Granted, it's a pretty unfriendly thing for an ally to do, but is the media Are they covering for a lackluster government performance here?
Look, to a certain extent they are.
But look, I don't buy into the all in with Trump mentality of some people on the right. I mean, Trump can be wrong, and with these tariffs he is wrong, not only from a perspective of his relationship with Australia and his other partners, but it's not good for the American economy either. I don't necessarily think he understands what these tariffs do, because he made the comment the other day that these tariffs are going to raise so much money that he won't know what to spend it on. Well,
if they work, they won't raise a single dollar. That's how tariffs work. But the reality is here that yeah, I mean the media in this country, all certain sections of the media have been running cover for the government for the whole three years they've been in and we can't despite the fact that I think America has done the wrong thing by Australia in this we can't discount the inability of the Australian government to maintain our most
important partnership. Now, you can blame Trump all you like, but we can't even get a phone call with the bloke because our government's on the nose. Why because we've got Australia's second worst prime minister in Washington as our ambassador, Australia's worst ever prime minister in the lodge who can't even get a phone call with the president, and Australia's third worst ever prime minister and Malcolm Turnbull sniping from the sideline. So it put all that together, why would
the American administration want to talk to us? So once the adults get back into power, I think we can probably smooth this over. But you're not going to hear that from certain media outlets.
Don't hold back, Steve and Louise.
Look, does our domestic media take too narrow of you on these sorts of things?
Look, I think they do. I mean to Stephen's point as well, that you know they have to look at this globally and actually work out what the strategy is for dealing with the fact that we now have these tariffs instead of making it all about the sort of anti Trump narrative and sort of weeping into their lattes about the end of the special relationship between the US and Australia, which of course is nowhere near close to
the truth at all. So I would like to see a bit more discussion, a bit more robust discussion about what it means now. I mean, Robert's piece was a classic example of that. I think, as you've pointed out, Caroline.
And look, while that discussion, well that rages I should say, and Steve, you made the point. Here is the snippet from the Miserable Ghost chiming.
In, I do not leave.
You should give in to bullies right now? What Trump's Trump wants people to suck up to him and to be sick a fantic pretty much all the people I've seen international leaders that have sucked up to Trump and been sickerphans have been run over.
And then Sarah Ferguson follows up with what I'm pretty sure was the question on everyone's mind, and the response was just astounding.
Is it easier and better for Australia in this acute moment when the tariff decision is obviously being made if diplomacists are given the maximum opportunity to operate behind closed doors without your intervention.
I never thought I'd have to defend free speech here on the seven point thirty report, and I'm glad you're you're you're a little bit.
Embarrassed raising that with me.
Defending free speech.
Louise I thought that was a pretty fair question by Sarah Ferguson.
Absolutely a fair question because as a former Prime minister, Malcolm tambull is in a very position he has to weigh up this sort of ego boost of commenting on issues over which he no longer has any jurisdiction versus the potential damage his comments can cause, particularly to the current Prime Minister of calls Anthony Albanezi. And by extension, I would add Peter Jutton as the Opposition leader to.
That as well.
So for him to just sort of then try and weaponize it as free speech, and look, I support free speech. He's entitled to his comments, but he has to be very careful what he says going forward as well, like any ex prime minister does.
And Steve, look, I know the media they love to have, you know, past politicians commentate on things that happens all of the time. I'm even surprised by Timbull with the approach that he took, and I'm probably giving him a little bit more credit.
Obviously Trump didn't hold back on him.
That just sets everything back as far as I'm concerned, you know, for Australia.
And that's the point.
And I made this comment earlier in the week on Chris Kenny's program that Malcolm Turnble's actually right in some of the comments he's made, but making them isn't helpful. And the reality is that you can talk about free speech all you like, but free speech has consequences, and when a former prime minister decides to insert himself in to aggrandize his own ego rather than actually help the country,
it does set things back. You know, He's right, Trump does want sick of fans, but it doesn't help for a former prime minister of the country when we're in these negotiations to come out and call Trump out for what he thinks of him.
That is not going to help anybody.
And the consequences of Malcolm Turnble's free speech is that once again he's put himself ahead of the country, which well he did for his entire Prime ministership didn't he.
Well, there is that, and I think you'll find some people who would sympathize with that view.
Absolutely.
Steve now on to our friends at the ABC and Hugh Marx, Well he starts as ABC's managing director on Monday. David Anderson, the former managing director, will he tap the mat and parted ways with the public broadcaster and the new era is here also all of us long suffering tax payers hope anyway.
Columnists for the AFR Pro Gowart offered.
Some long overdue and probably really refreshing advice, suggesting a Doge like efficiency is the fix for the ABC's news bias. Steve is an efficiency rinse at the ABC.
Well, it sounds delightful to me. Is that what it needs?
Look, I'd love to go over and check it out, but unfortunately my unicorns at the vets this week, so I can't ride into the ABC and see how their efficiency is going. But yeah, maybe get rid of getting rid of twice daily mail deliveries and tea ladies and all that kind of thing might be a start, But also maybe go back to its charter. Look, I think Prue gowit's onto something here. But I think she might be a little bit delusional thinking it's going to happen.
Yeah, fair enough, And Louise, does the new managing director know what is coming?
Does he know what is getting in for? Will he manage or will he join the collective?
Well, let's hope he does not join the collective because the biggest challenge for him is making the ABC cost efficient and relevant to all of Australia. So that's an enormous task ahead of him and one he'll be acutely aware of a nodes that all eyes will be on
him and trying to make that work. It's interesting though, because when he was leading Channel nine quite successfully, he was critical of the ABC and made a point I think of several years back, suggesting that Channel nine was thirty percent more efficient in production costs than the ABC, and he also said the ABC should focus on content that is not offered by the private sector, so that maybe would suggest it he'll take a knife to certain areas in order to shore up that budget. So it'll
be very interesting to see what's ahead. He also has to work with Kim Williams. I think that you have to be very careful that he's looking at it in a pragmatic sense and not an ideological sense. So all eyes on you, Marks, I would.
Think absolutely, and let's see how he goes with.
Nailing that jello to the wall.
Luise, Robert Stephen China Tempo, thank you so much for your time. Now after the break and everything it's Dan is racist, fascists and transphobic. We have that and more on the death throes of the mainstream media in the US. Welcome back to the show and now to Stars and Gripes, where we tear about the actions of the bitter activist
masquerading as journalists in the United States. And joining me this week is Sky News contributor Kosher Gada and Kosher, we think the tariff debate is hated here in Australia. Here it is playing out in the US between Press Secretary and Caroline Levett and AP journalist Josh bog When he was.
On the campaign trail, his big push was on tax cuts.
He's going there today as he's proposing tax heights in a form of terrorists.
Now and I'm curious he's now for why.
He's prioritizing that over the tax cuts.
He's actually not implementing tax hikes. Tariffs are a tax haike on foreign countries that again have been ripping us off. Tariffs are a tax cut for the American people. And the President is a staunch advocate of tax cuts.
As you know, he campaigned on no.
Taxes on tips, no taxes on overtime, no taxes on social security benefits. He is committed to all three of those things, and he expects Congress to pass them later this year.
I'm sorry, have you.
Ever paid a terre? Because I have.
Don't get charged on foreign companies, they get charged on the importers.
And ultimately, when we have fair and balanced trade, which the American people have not seen in decades, as I said at the beginning, revenues will stay here, wages will go up, and our country will be made wealthy again. And I think it's insulting that you are trying to test my knowledge of economics and the decisions that this president has made. I now regret giving a question to the Associated Press.
And lasse hous Nicole Wallace will she fied back with these I.
Mean, she's a wash and regret and re Morrison offense. But she's either tragically uninformed or lying. There is no economists that's been tapped to sit in Donald Trump's cabinet, who would testify under oath to what she just said, quote, tariffs are a tax cut for the American people. Simply the opposite is reality kosher.
This is all becoming pretty hated. Who's the casualty here?
Great to be with the Caroline, You know, I think that this one is a little bit of a roarershock test because tariffs are a controversial issue, as we all know, and there are many on both sides of the political isle who do not agree with it. It goes against fifty years or so of free market theory and economics and all of that. So to them, they would have seen it as a win for the other side, for
the AP journalists. And then there's a whole bunch of people who just understand the concept of fair and balanced trade, as Caroline Lovett put it. They like the idea of re orienting America from a consumer driven society to a production driven society. And even if that means consumer pricing for goods go up little bit, if it brings back manufacturing and jobs and everything that comes with that society lead back home, that's a win. So for those folks.
I think they'd be a team. Caroline Lovett over there. I think another thing that was interesting too is in the follow up question that the AP journalist asked. He was a little bit pejorative, where he questioned her like, have you ever paid a tariff?
Because I have?
And what that really was? I think the very lead There is a war of credibility between the two, and it's worth remembering. You know, she flipped that on him. She didn't let that slide. She said, you know, you're questioning my understanding of economics. It's worth remembering journalists typically, not all, but typically, and certainly he, because I looked
up his background, is not an economist either. He's never run a business as far as I can tell, so he doesn't actually have practical understanding of how tariffs could be absorbed along the supply chain. And so for him to question her credibility, I don't think he came across as particularly credible either. And that goes back to that roarershock test. I think of how people are going to see that exchange.
Sure, but it was a very very interesting exceriences, like you have to say, and the US show the view well, it provides us with some of our more unhinged content, I would say, and this ran from Whoopi Goldberg while trans woman Dylan.
Mulvaaney was on the show.
Well, I think this left pretty much everyone speechless.
The problem that the trans community is facing, and it's the same problem that women face, is if you don't know anything about our bodies, you don't know how it works. So when you come in and you say, oh, you know these men, these are men, you know, competing and competing against women, you're assuming that the women are weak and just can't do anything yourself.
Here.
Have you seen female athletes? They know what they're doing. So I'm not sure what's going on or why.
This is an issue.
The same for me as when people say, oh, you know, I don't know how I feel about you.
You do.
God doesn't make mistakes, And the challenge is not to the trans people, is to the people who are not trans. That's what God is looking to see.
How you treat people. Yeah, that's what that value is.
Happy.
Even Dilla Monviny looks uncomfortable, does what we think she's helping here?
On some level?
I hope she does think that because that was quite the rant. You know, this issue is one of the few that's an eighty twenty issue. Eighty percent of the American electorate agrees that boys should not be playing in girls sports, men should not be playing in women's sports, regardless of how you believe or feel about the trans community and what rights they should be eligible for or not, and all the rest of it. This is a very unifying issue. It was a big, high contrast moment in
the presidential election. It was actually the reason why Trump won a lot of those suburban moms and people groups like that that he was typically softer with and not didn't have as much support with.
They really rallied.
Behind him on this issue. So she seems to be doubling down to that twenty p As for you know how she tried to frame it as, oh, you know, women athletes know what they're doing, and she tried to flip it as though it's sort of denigrating women. Ask any of them, from Riley Gaines to Peton McNabb who was injured because of a biological male spiking volleyball in her face. There is a reality to this. It's common sense. Everybody sees it. But she's she's one of the last
true believers Carolines. So I think that's where she's going to stick.
Without twenty percent, She's going to be very lonely very soon.
Now.
During Trump's recent joint speech to Congress, he.
Said this eight billion dollars for making mice transgender.
This is real.
C and N went on to fact check that comment, claiming that Trump's statement was false. Anyway, the White House released the information on quite literally gender transition treatments given to animals like mice, showing that Trump's claim was true.
CE and N.
Well, then it backtracked on its fact check.
This is all quite confusing.
And then say an a guess go on to say this totally unchallenged.
We don't really need the transgender mice, do we?
I mean, it is I'm sorry man, it's real. Listen, is it real or not?
Hold a second?
Did we did we have to did we have to say it was real or not? It's real?
I mean was a sheep?
So my point listen, what they weren't talking about trans don't defend the mice. No, no, listen, you don't want to talk about it.
We don't talk about it.
But and then this, I would also like to see this done with honesty. When the president comes in and says we're giving all this money for transgender mice, and it's transgenic mice which actually help us fight cancer. Or when we say, oh we cut eight billion, it was actually eight million. You're not doing this in an honest and transparent way, and even worse, you are pretending to
be transparent when you are not. And you know, if this was a movie or a book and this person cut the Department of Education then showed an absolute lack of understanding of government in his behavior, he'd be like, that was too on the nose. You can't have him cutting the d wee and then not knowing enough to do his job. The incompetence is.
Ranked kosher CNN, along with much of the mainstream. Maybe they've got a bit of work to do, you know, patching their credibility back together.
Carry on like this.
Again, and we've talked about this already earlier in the show.
How does this help?
Yeah, they do have just a little bit of work to do to patch up their credibility, for sure. This is another one where they're missing the forest for the trees and they're just splicing these details about. You know, it's transgenic instead of transgender. I actually don't know what that means, or the dollar amount was not exactly precise, And they're getting into semantics about what the purpose of
the experiment was. Was it just about converting mice or was it using them as a lab model to figure something out for humans. Nobody cares. That's minutia that they're splicing the details. The big picture that people care about is that there is unlimited, crazy amounts of fraud, waste, and abuse in the government that Trump is actually doing something about for the first time in decades. Everybody talks about it, nobody's done it. He's doing something with it through DOGE
and other means. And also the transition that we just talked about is another eighty twenty issue. So nobody wants to see this stuff. And what they're doing is they're falling in the frame of like arguing in details and missing the big picture. I guess on purpose, and I don't think that's going to go very far to repair their credibility, which has many issues with it. And this is the wrong path for sure.
And just going on from that, you know, many things should have been really obvious in the last presidential election, including you know Americans, they seek of illegal immigration, they're seek of government wise, they're seek of feeling as though everyone gets put ahead of Americans. Obviously, the Democrats, they blame sexism and racism for Kamala's loss, despite the fact that she was.
Legitimately a terrible candidate. And this blame Doge for Look just watch the video yourself.
There are people who are charged with trying to find savings. So, yes, it's an attack on government, but it's also an attack on this government. What I mean by that is it's an attack on this government that used to be headed by a black man. It's an attack on this government that almost elected a black woman to the highest office in the land. It's an attack on a government that has been more welcoming and more supportive of people who have come to this country and search for a better life.
Kosher doje is racist?
Again? Do these people refuse to learn.
That old chestnut? It's such a trustee argument for them, and it has worked for a period of time. Label everybody racist, sexist, misogynist, you know, whatever the slur is. And he's going back to that. And I also love how he was going back to President Obama, who was legitimately very popular, even though many people from the right side of politics obviously did not agree with most of his policy agenda. He was a gifted politician and was
very popular. So I think he's trying to attach that or claim to the golden years of the Democrat Party, which is the Obama years, and say that this is an attack on that, even though most of the spending has been in place for decades and decades and decades well before Obama, not only from him. So it made no sense. But I think it's just like a very intellectually lazy argument to make, and when all else fails and you're on camera, go to racism.
Every time, and it seems to work for them.
It seems to go totally unchallenged, and then we just we stay exactly where we are without improving that position.
Kosher Gata, thank you so much for your time.
After the break, and we have the low lights of the ABC this week, including a hit piece on the Australian War Memorial.
Jared Henderson joins me next.
Welcome back and joining me now, as he does each and every week, This Guy News, Australia's media watched your columnist, Jared Henderson Jared Lovely to have you back and look while reporting on Trump's decision to you know, slap to Braffs on Australia.
ABC.
Journo Melissa Clark made this astonishing claim on Our and Breakfast.
Their argument is somewhat undercut by someone from their own side. Former Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull yesterday saying whilst he was able to secure an exemption last Trump administration, that took over a year, and the circumstances this time are very different.
Malcolm Turnbull on the Liberal side, well, it's been a long time and I'm not quite so sure about that.
How about this?
If I said the name Peter Dutton, what one word springs into your mind?
Thug jered, What was your reaction?
Well?
I found it pretty funny actually, because if anyone understands Malcolm Turnbull and the current Liberal Party, it's pretty clear he's not on the side of people like Peter Dutton, and he's the leader of the Liberal Party and the leader of the coalition. So when I saw this, the idea that Peter Dutton's argument, whether it's valid or not, is somehow diminished by the fact that Malcolm Turnbull doesn't agree with it because he's on dutton side. I mean,
that's just totally fallacious. He's not on Peter dutton side. He's on his own side and is entitled to be. But the idea that somehow you bring him into this debate is one of these comments that is Melissa Clark is now doing and others on the ABC when someone is interviewed, someone comes on and makes a comment about what they think about it. I mean Melissa Clark or Peter Martin or someone else. But it just totally misunderstands
Malcolm Turnbull's position. He hasn't been a strong supporter of the Liberal Party since he was the Liberal Party leader and lost the support of a majority of his colleagues in the party room in twenty eighteen. I don't think he would deny that himself. I think he would be surprised to think he was on Peter Dutton's side on any issue.
Correct, And it has been a downhill since twenty eighteen. Now over at the Public Broadcaster and it's chief political correspondent, well Laura Tingle, she had this analysis of the situation on seven.
Thirty Australian politicians have expended a lot of oxygen hyperbole over the years extolling the virtues and depth of the special friendship we have with the United States. It has justified jumping on board American military adventures, hosting defense facilities and military bases, and more recently an orchest alliance which makes us even more dependent on the US for our defense strategy. On the domestic political stage, the US alliance
is played out in terms of schoolyard besties. Prime ministers are judged in terms of whether they are best mates with the President of the day.
And then she followed up with this.
If anyone should know about the difficulties of getting foreign leaders on the phone, it's the leader of the Federal Coalition. When last in government, the coalition was unable to get anyone in the Chinese government to speak to Coalition ministers for several years about all the trade restrictions imposed on Australian products on its watch.
Jared, is this straying a bit towards activism?
Well, the new ABC chair when he came in about a year ago, Kim Williams. He hasn't done I think a lot of things that he should have done, but he has condemned activism and that's an example of pure activism. Laura Tingle there is editorializing. She's an activist commentator and
some of the things she says are profoundly false. I mean, the idea that somehow that Australia shouldn't have been involved with the United States and the Pacific War when many thought the very future of Australia was at stake is just a ludicrous proposition and I think if Miss Tingle had a chance to consider it, she wouldn't say it again. But she's too involved in the politics of it all. And that came out later in the same comment that she used in the introduction and when she was again
taking an activist in an activist's role about China. I mean, for example, I can understand that there is a problem getting in touch with President Bush. I don't know whether Peter Dutton would have been able to do so he was Prime Minister or not. He may have. Anthony Albinezi on the third occasion wasn't. But it's got nothing to do with China. The argument Australia had with China, and most people now would conceide that China was the aggressor
in that argument. You're dealing there with the head of the Chinese Communist Party. In the United States, you're dealing with the democratically elected leader of the United States, and we do have our disagreements with the United States. But there's no comparison between trying to get a phone call with Donald Trump and not being able to get a phone call with President z. There's just no valid comparison.
It's just it's not a sensible proposition unless you want to score a point against Peter Dutton, which is what Laura Tingle was doing and.
Jared just a little a little bit more on that.
Look, these are really complicated issues, These are.
Really nuanced issues.
Do you feel like sometimes that context or that nuance against lost.
In that sort of in that sort of editorializing.
Well, it does because it doesn't really it doesn't examine the arguments because it is an editorial position, and when people can get to hear both arguments, both sides of this argument, those people usually can form their own opinion. But it is a complicated matter. It's not a simple matter. But when it's presented as a simple matter, I don't know where anyone goes from there. But there absolutely no comparison between our relationship with the United States and our
relationship with China now or a few years ago. There's absolutely no comparison whatsoever.
No fair enough.
And finally the ABC rolled out Mark Willersy on its Full Corners program to put together well, you'd have to call it a hit piece.
On the Australian War Memorial.
Here's the kind of people they chose for the interview.
Redevelopment is to put it bluntly in abomination.
No, I think that's dirty money. It should not be accepting money from merchants of death.
And here's what they had to say on Afghanistan.
The panel next to the display is to me, the most merely mouthed of writing the memorials ever put up. It was completely inadequate because it didn't explain the moral vacuum that those soldiers have fallen into.
Jared Unfortunately, the ABC falls into this trap where there's not much in the way of alternative views, and I feel like that's what's happened to here.
Well, Peter Stanley is a good historian, but on this matter, I mean, there's just the left wing view that there's something wrong with the armaments industry. But if we didn't have an arm industry in the Second World War, the other side would have won. I mean, this is the old left wing thing about the agents of death. Now my problem with the program. I mean, the other argument is that that the War Memorial shouldn't be extended. But they put the two of them together plus some others
to run a line. So three people who were connected with the War Memorial who would expect to support it, the chair, the managing director and a board member, they got brief says, and then the ten other people they rolled out. Ten of them were opposed, so there was absolutely no balance whatsoever. And Mark Willisy himself, the presenter, he was vehemently opposed, So you had sort of an eleven three. But the three viewer would think, well, they
would say that, wouldn't they they're running the joint. But all the other people who are not running the joint come in and bag it. And some of the things, as said, are completely offensive. And I think most Australians admire the War Memorial, Many who know anything about it would think it probably after all these years, should be
extended a bit beyond when it was last extended. But somehow just condemn it all with only one side really of the debate heard, it really means that under Kim Williams, and he's only the chairman, he's not the managing director, so be fair to him. But under the new chair it's no different to what it was under the old chair.
There's still no viewpoint diversity, and a program like that on four corners, a very influential program should have heard from different views and I could produce many people, intelligent, articular people, men and women who would rock up and say the exact opposite, but they didn't get a chance.
Jared Henderson, thank you for your analysis. As always, Now that's all we have a time for this evening up. Next is news Note