This is the Media Show with Jack.
Outing, Hello and welcome to the Media Show. Tonight we'll take a look at what the ABC gets in Lever's budget and inside fights in the US media. But first, this week was all about the budget and Lever's lofty economic promises were in the spotlight.
So how did our media cover it?
Alban Easy government is copying plenty of flak for its big spending budget, giving three hundred dollars energy rebates to everyone, with cost of living relief for every household.
Jim Chalmers insists this budget isn't about winning votes, but we'll take that with a grain of salt.
Treasurer spends big on budget cost of living relief.
There's energy bill relief and income tax cuts across the board.
Every Australian household will save hundreds of dollars on their power bills.
And of course there were some slogans which went very much unchallenged.
For the most part.
Alberan Easy took to social media to claim we're giving every Australian a tax cut.
So is that true?
Well, Labor change legislation to ensure that anyone earning more than one hundred and fifty thousand dollars will pay more tax than they would have. It is a pretty important detail which meant in the media simply forgot. And aside from all of that, because of Australia's inflation crisis, your wages have been pushed into higher tax brackets, or, as Laura Jay's put it on the Sky News panel, inflation driven bracket creep plundered twenty five billion dollars from taxpayers this year.
At the center of your pain is bracket creep. Wage increases feel like they are amounting to absolutely nothing, So look at this chart. In twenty twenty two, bracket creep was worth about half of the increase in personal income tax eighteen billion dollars taken from households.
This year, income.
Tax went up by sixty two billion dollars, and about twenty five billion dollars of that was due to bracket creep. This third column shows even with Labour's Stage three tax cuts, the ree jig Stage three tax cuts, they weren't about twenty five billion dollars right, but there are still six billion dollars worth of bracket creep next year alone. Expect the opposition to seize on that.
We also had a stunt where three hundred dollars of your money presumably will be paid directly to energy companies to lower the power bill. Now, many in the media celebrating this cash splash have short memories. It all related to this broken promise.
Ouseholds will benefit by two hundred and seventy five dollars on Apple reducing power prices by two hundred and seventy five dollars, prices by two hundred and seventy five dollars two hundred and seventy five dollars, two hundred and seventy five dollars a year, two hundred and seventy five dollars, two hundred and seventy five dollars a year.
If Labor tries to make the claim that it has kept this promise because of the one off payment, do not fall for the spin. The election policy was clear. It was to lower power prices in perpetuity from twenty twenty five, not artificially lower them once. And this pretty much sums up Labour's entire budget. It is a stopgap measure with very little long term substance. Well, let's bring in our panel now, and we've got media writer at
The Australian Sophie Elsworth and PR Council's Christy McSweeney. Well, Christy, why don't we start with you. What did you make of the media coverage that you saw and what kind of verdict would you place on the public's reaction to the budget.
Look, I think the public swide by this false promise of we're going to get three hundred dollars. A lot of the media reported that it was almost like an economic stimulus and people were going to receive three hundred dollars. There's not a lot of people out there who know that that three hundred dollars is going to be paid to the energy company, not to you, and it's going to be paid quarterly over two financial years, so it's not going to come all once either. And you're right,
jacket is a one off payment. So like all budgets, the devil is in the detail. But there's a lot of spin on this one. They're framing it as an economic management good and economic good management budget. But then another ten years of deficit after this probably so if they want to go to an election this year, they can and they can say we've delivered two surpluses and
people feel really good about getting targeted. And I say targeted because not everybody's getting what they should get when people who are expecting those Stage three tax cuts as they were, as they voted for at the election.
Yeah, and that's a pretty big point.
Now, Sophie, cutting through the spin, how do you think the media fared. Were they good at pulling apart some of the half truths in the budget?
Well, Jack, they're professionals that this, as you know, I mean, we have this every twelve months.
You know, many of us have done budget after budget.
But it's cutting through all the spin that is the key and breaking it down and what it means for you, I, the viewer, the listener, whoever. But I thought there was some great headlines during the week. There was one on the front of the head at the front of the Herald Sun that read jim flation, which I'm not so sure the Treasurer.
Would have liked that one.
But this three hundred dollars rebate for energy was really dominating because it's a very simple policy to explain, it's very easy for people to understand, and then the headlines dominate on that.
But let's remind.
Viewers, Jack that the Albanezi government did promise that energy prices would drop by two hundred and seventy five dollars and they have not done that.
So this is a way to counter that. Say, you're giving.
More of a rebate, but this rebate is only one off, so it will only cover these increasing power costs for one calendar year or one year, should I say, and then the problems.
Are back to where they started.
So this is a lot of spin in this budget, but we get that from both sides of politics.
Well said, But moving on now. Even though it was a serious cost of living budget, some labor MPs thought it was all one big joke. Now, Christy, I want to bring you in here for me watching this video, and it did generate some headlines because it was a bit confronting. We're on one hand saying people are doing it tough. We've got this tough budget where we're having to provide relief to energy bills. People are struggling with rent.
A lot of that's immigration driven, and the people who are running the country are doing these bizarre dances where they're kicking their feet up as if I don't know what to make of it, What are your thoughts?
This is an absolute thing that people trapped inside a bubble think is funny. It's an absolute in joke, and I'm sure a lot of MPs and other people in the building thought it was clever, thought it was leading into the zeitgeist about TikTok videos. I'm sure people in the building could understand the relevance of the autumnal changes
of the budget tree and so forth. But to people out there, they are thinking, why are we sending people to Canbra to dance in a courtyard on budget day when I can't pay my bills, when everything at the supermarket is costing me more, when I'm not better off than I was two years ago. Since you came to government and you're dancing around a tree.
Yeah, good point, Sophie Elsworth. Your thoughts was it an own goal?
Jack? I just don't think it's the time for it.
I mean, it's nice to see politicians have a little bit of fun. They're generally pretty serious, but when they're putting out social media content that you know, looks like they're having a bit of a.
Wow of a time.
You know, Australian economy, households are suffering. There's no denying that people are feeling the strain and I think a mum.
And dad household out in the Burbs.
Who is struggling to pay their mortgage in their power bill would look at that and just go These people have no idea.
Yeah, it's asinine, it's stupid, the need to get back to work. But now to a great scoop by our panelist Sophie Elseworth at The Australian who sought it through the budget papers only to find that the audience at the ABC.
Is expected to plummet.
Sophie reported the budget papers say the ABC's combined weekly audience reach, which is a target of sixty seven percent in this financial year, is expected to fall to sixty three percent. It is expected to drop again in the twenty twenty four five financial year to sixty two percent,
a result blamed on soft and used web services. Now, while audiences are dropping, the national broadcaster is actually pocketing even more of your cash, with the one point one nine billion dollar budget getting a fifty eight point five million dollar top up next year. Wages at the ABC will also rise by nine percent as well. Now let's bring Sophie back into discuss. Now, Sophie, the thing that jumped out at me is they're blaming this concept of a soft news web market for the shrinking audiences.
What does that mean in this context? So what are they trying to say.
Well, they're trying to say that, you know, news services are seeing a decline in audience. Now, we know that it is challenging time for media outlets, whatever platform they are on. But the thing is, we give the ABC about one point two billion dollars annually in government funds, So it's expected that they keep the audience engage because they're getting an awful lot of bucket of cash dropped at their front doors every year.
Now this is not happening.
Their audience will decline to sixty three percent reach and then a further decline to sixty two percent reach. Now, I would argue, it's not about budgetary issues at the ABC that's seeing an audience decline. It's about their content Jack. We talk about it on this show week in Wakeout. Even Paul Barriot the Media Watch was calling out some
of their coverage with the Bondi murders. They are not getting to issues, they are not covering news events properly, and then viewers and listeners and readers are tuning in elsewhere, So they have a.
Problem with engaging their audience.
And I would argue it's because of the content and the quality of the content in some instances that they are pushing out.
Yeah, I couldn't agree well, and Christy, obviously the ABC does some amazing work in the regions. Where I think they've gone wrong is dedicating so many so much headcount in to say the TikTok division, and they're obviously trying to do it because you get these easy, cheap views there and then they can report back in you know, the Senate estimates and everything that their audience share has
gone up, but the views aren't equal. It's not the same as capturing a big audience in a regional area as getting this bizarre audience on TikTok with these cheap views for essentially just covering memes and jokes.
That's exactly right. And you know, I grew up a regional Australian and I grew up watching the ABC, and I'm grateful and I'm thankful for the work they do in bringing representation of regional Australians to the rest of Australia. But there's not enough of a concentration on that regional Australians would be mortified to see what the ABC does in the city. If they tuned in to ABC Sydney in the mornings and heard the host promoting wanting Sydney siders to engage in a game of tag. People do
not want to list into that content. The news direction is dropping dropping if concepts such as that are major promotions to engage in audience. It used to be the best investigative journalism in Australia. It still is in parts of the regions, but not when you're tuning on in the city stations.
Well said, and now to the Walk LEAs, which is taking a very brave stance by standing up against the evil fossil fuel companies. The Australian reports that the Media Awards event has acted its partnership with Australian oil company and Pole, claiming they will only work with companies which have a quote tangible benefit to humanity. Sophia, I want to bring you in here because you've written this story.
The thing that I was confused about. The insinuation appears to be that fossil fuels provide no tangible benefit to humanity.
Is that what you thought as well?
Well, that's basically what it's saying, Jack, And this uproar happened last year when the cartoonists, a group of cartoonists were quite disgusted that the Walkleys had one of its major sponsors as Ampole, and then further fallout occurred after an SMH article said that the founder, Sir William Walkley of Ampole, who also helped create The Walkleys, held racist views in a column written newspaper in the nineteen sixties. So they're basically now cutting off or biting the hand
that feeds them and this is not going to end. Well, they've ended, they're ending their relationship with amp Pole. But I think this is virtue signaling at its finest, and Daily Telegraf cartoonist Warren Brown said to me in this story, how are these cartoonists who are so outraged going to get to.
The Walkley Awards? Are they going to.
Arrive in a tesla or on a solar powered pogo stick?
This is a bit of virtue signaling and it's probably gone too far.
Jack.
Yeah, the irony is that the announcement would have been written on a computer which is powered by energy from fossil fuels. Bunch of hypocrites. We're going to take a quick break. When we're back. Albanesi gets into media trouble with one of his tenants.
Welcome back.
Anthony Albanzi also made headlines this week after The Daily Telegraph revealed he was evicting a tenant from an investment property.
So my landlord is Anthony Albanesi, right, the Prime Minister, and look full disclosure. Albet's been a really good landlord. I like Albow I noted for him in the last election. I'm supportive of a lot of the things that he does. I'm very confused by this, and I guess I'm disconfused by the circumstances that again I wasn't given the opportunity to potentially look at other.
Options increasing the rent.
And I was particularly confused by the reason that the estate agent, which was that the landlord was considering selling the property.
So what did Albanesi say in response?
I wish him well, but.
I am allowed to make changes which are a direct result of the changes that have happened.
In my life from where I was ten years ago.
Seems fair enough to me. And while Flanagan was claiming that Albert was his landlord, the truth may be more complicated. News dot COM's Sam Maiden reports that comedian Chrissy Flanagan, the ex partner of the man that Anthony Albanesi is trying to evict from his investment property, has sensationally revealed that she remained on the lease even after she moved out in order to keep the rent down. Now let's
bring the panel back in Christy. First of all, just starting with the scenario, just in general, who do you think is in the right here? I've got a lot of sympathy for Anthony Albanesi. I think that this bloke has had very low rent for a very long time and it's his prerogative to maximize his rent sell the property.
But he's getting a lot of flat. The story has taken wings.
The story's got.
A few twists and turns, hasn't it. And I love that the Daily Telegraph went out to do this story against the Prime Minister and the talent they found was so complimentary of the Prime Minister, was almost an ad for what a good bloke Anthony Albanize is, So they didn't quite get what they were after there.
So the Telly have been.
Really happy with the story taking another turn today about multiple leaseholders and who actually is the tenant here? But Anthony Albanize in his response, he's replicating the response of every person in Australia who owns investment properties and is looking at state governments put in legislation on the rights of renters and listening to politicians talking about rent moratoriums.
And so forth. It is an asset class.
It should be treated as such, like every other asset class in Australia, and the Prime Minister has just proved that point. He's allowed to do with his property what he wants, but he's been really good about keeping the rent down for this small business owner during and post COVID. I think we you know, I have some sympathy for the PM on this one as well.
Yeah, I mean Sophie.
Obviously the tenant, Flanagan hasn't been that critical of Albanesi, and he's more talking broadly about the rights for renters in general. Seems to kind of be where he's fallen his position, But it has ended up hurting Albanesi in some demographics, I would argue, and I think that this renterers maybe a little bit entitled. He's had very low rents. If I was here, I'd be thanking Albanesi for all those years of support.
Well, Jack, there's a few things here, I think to unpa.
Yes, the Prime Minister is entitled to sell any asset classes that he has, and he's obviously looking at doing that. He's well within his rights. But I would argue the timing of this is not great for the Prime minister. When the government's all about, you know, helping out renters, they're struggling out there. The timing of this, it's turned into a media you know, you know, whole drama really.
As a result of this that could have been avoided if this was done at a different time.
It's right in the middle of federal budget week and it just doesn't look like the Prime Minister is practicing what he preaches. He's basically saying the tenant's got to go, I'm selling my property. He's well within his rights to do that. But I think people are going, you're sort of saying one thing but doing another.
Perhaps, Yeah, it's a good point. He should have waited until after the budget. It's a cost of living budget, and I guess it comes back to you. You know that video we played of dancing MPs You've got to walk as well. You can't just say the right things, You actually have to practice what you preach. And I can see that there is area for him to be criticized there.
Anyway.
Let's move on now to the US, where Trump's hush money trial is in full swing. And to stop Trump from talking publicly about the trial in a way which could be perceived to be intimidating witnesses, the judge placed a gag order on him, but that didn't stop a few wild press conferences taking place as his supporters found a loophole.
Some of Donald Trump's allies joined him in New York yesterday for his criminal hush money trial. Outside of court, they said, what Trump can't because of the gag order in place on the former president. You just saw both Senator j. D. Vance of Ohio and Senator Tommy Tarbarwell of Alabama said they're just there to support a friend, but both then criticized Trump's former fixer, Michael Cohen. Vance also attacked the judge's daughter, unfounded claims made by the former.
President, Christie.
Let's bring you in here. I mean, it's been such a circus this entire trial. I did find it very funny that Trump always finds a way you could put a gag or order on him. The insinuation appears to be that he sent out his supporters to say what he would say if he legally could and didn't want to go to jail.
America.
Wow, And I will say that Republican politicians are basically lining up to prove loyalty to Trump.
They would do anything.
I'm surprised that there are not more of them there following this legal circus around the United States, to turn up and back Trump and make statements in his support to gain loyalty from him.
There are people in.
The Publican party who have spoken out against Trump in the past who are now changing their mind, who are absolutely making statements adverse to what they had said previously, or because they know Trump's reputation for people who are loyal to him.
And will back his point of view.
That's not uncommon in politicians the world over, but I think this is a really extreme case here in the United States, with Republicans falling over themselves to do anything they can to show loyalty to Donald Trump at this point of the electoral cycle.
So for elseworth your thoughts.
Oh, look, isn't he clever?
Hat He's managed to get around this in what appears to sending out.
His allies to speak for him.
Watch out, because obviously, with this US election, Trump is going to do absolutely everything he absolutely can to make sure he can defeat Joe Biden.
And this is just one step that he's saying. I won't be gagged. I will get around this.
Yeah, we'll see how the strategy of potentially infuriating the judge plays out. I can't imagine it will help him too much, but look, staying on US politics, Joe Biden's upcoming See an End debate with Donald Trump may have a few restrictions to help the sitting president. Fox News reports that Biden's camp wants no audience, a limitation on media organizations, and candidate Mike's to be muted when their time runs out. Now, Christie, let's bring you back in here.
I don't mind the idea of candidate Mike's being muted the moment that the time goes out. But the reason they're doing it is because in twenty twenty, Joe Biden was getting talked over, Trump was fighting back, and it created this ferocious talk fest. What do you think, what do you think about these rules?
It's not unusual for the party of essentially the front runner, even though in this case, I don't think he is to come to a debate preparation with rules, and that's the president's prerogative. But they're obviously trying to safeguard Joe Biden from making gaffes and from talking too much, which is unusual for a debate where they're trying to contain his ability to speak.
Sophie Elseworth, what are your thoughts.
This signals to me that Joe Biden is worried.
He's worried of having a debate with Trump, and I think he's worried that Trump will win the debate, and that's why his officers come out and made these restrictions on the debates.
Jack.
So for you, Christy, thank you so much for joining me tonight. That's all the time we have for tonight. That's it for me. Up next is lefties losing it.