Vince is the Media Show with Jack.
Houting Hello and welcome to the Media Show. I'm Jack Houghton, and tonight will take a look at the biggest stories in the media. But first, this week, the ABC published its forty seventh correctional clarification of the year and it was reprehensible. When the murderous leader of terror organization Hesmela was killed in a drone strike. The ABC got on the ground to tell us the real story.
But one loss loomed especially large over the crowds.
Today we mourn the death of saith Ha's on loss of our love.
He was the mother who was the father of Lebanon Hip.
How comfort hip hop security will you when when you wanted answers we turned to him.
After nearly a year of rally's supporting Gaza and now Lebanon, many of these protesters say they are sick and tired of Israel's attacks on Arab lands and there are again calling on the Australian government to apply more to well about a pressure and sanction Israel.
That one minute and forty seven second news report which was pushed into the homes of Australians and spread across social media reporter Nabil al Nashaf failed to mention that the man who was being celebrated was actually a murderous terrorist. It was basically a propaganda video promoting the life of an evil extremist. Now what I'm about to read is extremely confronting, but the Jerusalem Post sought to push back against the narrative that this man was some sort of
hero or freedom fighter. Now, they wrote earlier this month, the crimes of his party's men in Syria could fill volumes, beginning with the dismemberment of children and women, starving the elderly and children to death, besieging civilians, depriving them of basic life necessities, looting property, confiscating some lands and burning others. Women were raped in front of their husbands, and girls in front of their fathers and mothers, all to further
crush and humiliate their spirits. This and many more unthinkable crimes is why Australia and most western countries consider him to be the leader of a terrorist organization. Now, you would think that the ABC, when confronted with a complaint about this news report, would just delete it, apologize and offer an explanation. Instead, the ABC issued a correction saying the clip had missing context when published digitally because it didn't have the advantage of context from the two stories
which went before it. Now, to solve this tiny problem, the ABC put a tiny caption under the video that let readers know the man was also a terrorist, but the video was not amended to include the detail and is still on their website today. And well, we think that is pathetic and appalling journalism, which shows that there is no accountability at the ABC. Well, joining me on the show this week is the Australians media writer Sophie Elseweth and Sky and Use contributor Damian Kouri. Now, Sophie,
let's start with you. This is not just a mistake. There was a decision made to omit the fact that this terrorist, which is what he was before he was killed, was the leader of Hezbollah. Why would they do that? And then why would they think a caption, a small little caption underneath that is an appropriate way to deal with that omission?
Well, jacket's not acceptable and this is where the ABC lets itself down. We pay for the ABC, the Australian taxpayers pay for it. They have to be really clear in their reporting and this is a critical fact which is crucial when reporting this story. And also Jack, the fact that they can put out a correction later is one step in the right direction. But unfortunately, when you have a video, a lot of people are just consuming video content. They're not going to be looking elsewhere for
a correction or amendment somewhere else. They have to change the video too to reflect this change, and they have not done that, and that I believe is letting down the Australian public when they are going to the ABC, as many of them probably will, thinking they're a good, reliable news source.
But they're not putting out the real facts here.
It's such a good point, and Damien, let's bring you in. I mean, obviously, the complexities of the situation on the ground are numerous. It's a very difficult story to cover. But when I watched that video, it was so wholly positive and so wholly glowing. And there was even a sentence by the reporter himself, not someone that he interviewed, when he was talking about calls to sanction Israel, and you can only conclude that that call was related to
them killing this terrorist. To me, I cannot see how it could possibly be justified as balanced journalism.
Well it can't, Jack, I mean, that's the reality of it. And the problem with the ABC these days, of course, is it's not just a about bias. It's also about editorial standards and just the general quality of their journalism and the quality of their programming is declining. We pay so much attention to the bias question, which is huge and is obviously a big problem still, that we're not noticing the fact that it's just getting god awful, that
the ABC is actually just pretty bad these days. If you go back to the olden days, we used to joke, you know about you know, the story breaks on page one of the newspaper and the corrections on page sixty four the next day. That's exactly what so few were sort of alluding to there, with the fact that, you know, the correction is never as prominent or as widely seen as the original error, so the damage is already done. The problem, of course, a bias does exist at the ABC.
It exists explicitly and culturally. If you want to talk about systemic problems in media organizations, I think the ABC has got the biggest systemic problem in terms of its culture. But there is definitely a bias coming through. And we know that bias is done in journalism through mission as much as it's done through inclusion. So this is a case of hideous bias biomission, extremely obvious bias biomission, and it should lead to know how many times is it's
going to go on. How many times are we going to sit here and have this conversation. It is time for a clear policy on the ABC. It is time for clear review. The culture stinks and it can't be fixed. It has to be There has to be radical breakthrough kind of change and that's what we need to see. The leadership from Peter Dutton on this very loud and clear, I.
Think yeah, and Kim Williams as well. Look, Damien makes incredibly good points about how it is systemic. The fact that you've essentially got a tax pay funded organization praising a terrorist that happened. Whether they like it or not, it was glowing if you look at it from a tone point of view. The fact that they're not mentioning that he was a terrorist responsible for all those crimes over the three decades that he was in charge of
that terror cell. Kim Williams has said that he does not want these youngjournalists with partisan views to be using the ABC as their platform to essentially be bloggers. Words to that effect and paraphrasing a bit. He does not seem capable, no share, seems to be able to rain in this body. Does someone like Peter Dutton need to come in and make some kind of broader policy change about the ABC?
Well, Jack Kim Williams has come out and said earlier in the year, if you don't want to be impartial, don't work at the ABC. It's very clear he's also stirring up a bit of a hornet's nest because there are changes underway in the ABC he is causing. He's ruffling feathers in there and some people don't like it, but I think he's trying to create some change now.
When it comes to.
The issue of the coalition, they were in power for nearly ten years before mister Albanezi became Prime Minister.
They didn't do much at all about the ABC.
So it's all well and good for the conservative side of politics to winge and complain about the time tax payer fund and broadcaster, but what did they do when they're in office?
Extremely little.
So this is a problem that is so widespread that it has to come from within the organization and not forgetting. We are seeing the exit of managing director David Anderson in the new year, and I think that could potentially shake things up if they get someone external, not just an ABC lifer.
Such a good point about it, but I still think there's a lot of conservative politicians that don't quite get how bad it is and how a lot of it is a barracking against their own side, against their own arguments. It's a huge problem. Some are waking up, but we'll keep an eye on it. Let's move on now, because Carmala Harris is struggling in the polls, which has prompted
the presidential hopeful to go on the attack. Now there's talks of Harris even doing a lengthy sit down with podcast to Joe Rogan, as her team seems to realize that she is running out of time to sell her message to the American people. And it might be why Harris this week decided to was sit down with Fox News and to point out why this was such a big deal. Harris has never done a Fox interview before, and maybe she should have kept it that way.
Your campaign slogan is a new way forward, and it's time to turn the page. You've been vice president for three and a half years. So what are you turning the page from.
Well, first of all, turning the page from the last decade in which we have been burdened with the kind of rhetoric coming from Donald Trump that has been designed and implemented to divide our country.
Ah turning the page from the previous previous administration. It doesn't make much sense, does it. And she also missed the opportunity to look forward and define her campaign. Instead, her answer seemed to boil down to I'm not Donald Trump. She also appeared to not be prepared now answers on her immigration plan. They clearly lacked substance and details.
Voters tell polsters all over the country and here in Pennsylvania that immigration is one of the key issues that they're looking at this election, and specifically the influx of illegal immigrants from more than one hundred and fifty countries. How many illegal immigrants would you estimate your administration has released into the country over the last three and a half years.
Well, I'm glad you raised the issue of immigration because I agree with you. It is a topic of discussion that people want to rightly have. We have a broken immigration system that needs to be repaired.
So your Homeland Security secretary said that eighty percent of apprehension.
I'm not finished.
We have a refreshment of six million people have been released.
And when Harris got flustered, she resorted to fear in her mind, Donald Trump was going to start locking up his adversaries.
He has talked about locking people up because they disagree with him. This is a democracy, and in a democracy, the president of the United States, in the United States of America should be willing to be able to handle criticism without saying he'd lock people up.
For doing it.
Ironically, the courts and legal system have clearly been weaponized against Trump in a way which is anti democratic. But you won't hear Harris talk about that. And my favorite moment of all in this interview is watching Harris struggle to explain why she told the biggest lie of the left that Joe Biden was mentally fit to be in office.
Ask you this, and you told me many interviewers that Joe Biden was on his game, that ran around circles on his staff. When did you first notice that President Biden's mental faculties appeared diminished.
Joe Biden. I have watched in from the Oval office to the situation room, and he has the judgment and the experiment and experienced to do exactly what he has done in making very important decisions on behalf of the American people. Joe Biden is not valid. I understand Donald Trump.
Donald Trump, we talked about it, and Donald.
Trump, you didn't have any concerns.
I think the American people have a concern about Donald Trump.
Damian, let's bring you in Joe Biden. He has the experiment to do what he has done. Wise words, what do you think about that interview?
Well, it's classic Kamala Harris word salad. And what was different about this interview was it was with an adversarial sort of interviewer. Wasn't a softball interview, and he challenged her on the usual key messages. Now, one of the things that we teach people in PR and media training
is that you should go to your key message. But the bit that she misses is that the key message has to have some deaths, it has to have some substance, and it has to address the underlying concerns of the audience, and she kept going back to this key message about Donald Trump blocking this legislation they were trying to get through on the board, which is irrelevant in the context
of the fact that she had absolute power. Let's remember the Democrats had the House, they had Congress, they had the Senate as well, they had the executive There was nothing stopping her in the first two years of hers her vice presidency in driving an agenda on the border and getting stuff done. And she's trying to say that the bill that was brought in nine months ago that was somehow allegedly blocked by Trump is ridiculous. Six Democrats
voted against that bill, by the way. But even today, even in the second two years of their term, when they didn't have the House majority, they still can do executive orders. The president, the vice president can write executive orders. So there's absolutely no excuse. She can't say I didn't have power to do this. And so what she was bridging to in her answer there was a lie, and Brett Byer, very rightly was the first journalist to call her out on it. I'd like to see a lot
more of that. I hope she really does do.
Joe Rogan, Yeah, well, that would be that would be a phenomenal interview. I think everyone would like to see that. Damien raises a really good point about I guess whether someone is battle hardened because they've done adversarial interviews, and because she hasn't done it, she was so out of her depth. She's so used to doing these sixty minute interviews, Sophie, where clearly there are people that are on her side, they're not going to push back, and she's not used
to that. Then, whereas sa jd Vance, he gets it. Every single time he goes and holds a press conference, it's water for ducks back. He gets smashed so often by the media that he is battle hardened. And I think that's a huge mistake politicians make when they hide themselves, they make themselves ill equipped.
Will.
This looked like a car crash interview Jack, where she was mumbling, she wasn't making sense, and she just kept going back to the old argument Donald Trump is not.
Well, he's a bit crazy, et cetera, et cetera.
The questions are about Joe Biden and they were really important, and that was her opportunity to seize the moment and get out her.
Sort it goes to her a character as well, Sophie, and she's trying to say, well, I'm not Joe Biden, but it goes to your character. If you told people that he was okay, and clearly he wasn't, why did you tell people?
But she wouldn't answer that question directly, Jack, She dodged it and then went on to Donald Trump, Americans are not stupid.
Now.
She did that interview to try and persuade people who are Republican voters to vote for her and also capture that group of Americans who are undecided, and I think she came out far worse off.
Yeah, I mean, Damian, would you agree with that? Do you think that people would be less likely or more likely to vote for her after watching that?
Well?
Look, I think the media is so partisan in America that I wonder how many swinging voters actually would be watching fongs and thinking about, you know, changing their vote as a result of that. And if you was, probably a few. And I can understand the strategy of wanting to do that and step into the lines then because it'll spread on social media and go through other channels as well. So yeah, I mean, it's not a bad strategy. If you can pull it off and if you've got
something to say. But if your only answer is I'm not Joe Biden and I'm not Donald Trump, and you don't have a message that is well who are you?
What are you?
What do you stand for? It leaves people to think, well, I could be anything you want me to be. Boys and girls, just make me president, please, you know, And that's what people are looking for in a leader, you know. With with Trump, I mean, he may not be that articulate, right,
He's not probably as grammatically correct. He waffles, he rambles, he goes off on tangents all the time, and he lies by hyperbole and exaggeration, but you get a sense you know what you're buying, right, you know that Donald what Donald Trump stands for, what his policies are going to be. And that's what the public want. They want that sense of confidence in knowing what the product is that they're that they're voting for and what they're going
to get at the end of the day. And with Kamala Harris, you just don't know.
Yeah, it's a good point. She spent a big chunk of the interview denying positions she'd had just five years ago by saying, well that was five years ago. Five I mean, this isn't that long. Policy shifts anyway. We're going to take a quick break, but when we're back
inside nine Publishings culture crisis. Welcome back now to turmoil at nine Publishing after the release of its culture review, which found bosses in nine's broadcast division would belittle, intimidate, gas light, and sexually harass employees, and when complaints were
made against management, HR would cover it up. Many journalists and newsrooms around the country stopped what they were doing yesterday afternoon as the lengthy report was released, which detailed these disturbing findings, and credit to the City Morning Herald for dedicating a front page to the story, which implicated its own management and leadership team and even the HR bosses who were supposed to be keeping people safe. Punishment island was a term that most people at nine were
familiar with. It was used to describe being frozen out by a toxic boss, and some women allege this happened to those who complained about bad behavior. The stories were so sobering for nine staff to read it led to moments like this from one of their top on air stars, a quick.
Word on all this.
I genuinely, genuinely feel for the women who have given testimony. I can't imagine how hard that was and the courage that it took. Many people are hurting. They feel like, what was the point of speaking out if perpetrators are not called out? I asked the same question yesterday and it's my understanding. Several investigations are now underway, and we have to be patient for the process of all that. It's essential and it's critical.
Stefanovic makes a good point. Allegations have been made against current managers, yet there does not seem to be accountability, at least at this stage. Let's bring the panel in to discuss Sophie Elsworth this. I don't know if you've managed to get through most of this report, but it does make for quite a sobering read. Karl Stefanovic raises a really interesting point, and I think a lot of
staff were wondering this. I know Shahi spoke to some people and did this up on her show as well, who were saying, well, hang on, we've got all of these allegations against current managers, but they're still our managers. How does that work?
So Jack We spoke yesterday to many staff, both former and existing staff at nine who took part in the review. They've really disappointed with this because they feel, and I'm speaking broadly here, that there are people within the organizations still there in very senior roles with allegations of misconduct against them. So this has opened up an enormous can of worms for nine Entertainment. They announced this review in May.
Now they're saying, you know, we've gone through the whole process, We've implemented or implementing twenty two recommendations, and we move on.
It's far from moving on. This is a giant headache for them.
There could even be court cases that come out of this, or legal action that comes out of this. There's a long way to go in this process, but there's a lot of very unhappy people in there that they feel some of the people that have had multiple complaints about them are still working in the business.
Yeah, Damien, let's bring you in. That's very problematic when you've got the company where essentially a lot of the people that are going to have to investigate these are in HR who do appear to have allegations against them themselves, which and that seems to be at the core of a lot of this that when the complaint is made, hr was not necessarily acting in the best interest of the complainant and seeking to legitimately find out what was going on, but it was more a carpet brushing exercise,
which now you know that's the same team. Presumably there's obviously been a little bit of move and everything at the top, But how are they going to be able to do that while keeping in mind that people are entitled to due process and you know, they do need to investigate it thoroughly. It's very tricky.
It is very tricky, and it's something that's impacting not just the media industry. I mean, we see it more clearly in the media industry, I guess because it's a more public industry. But this is the sort of thing that a lot of companies are wrestling with at the moment. How do you police this stuff? And it is extraordinarily
complicated because it can't be allowed to continue. I can tell you that back in the olden days in the newsrooms of Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane in the eighties and nineties, when I was kicking around as a young journalist, the
culture was terrible. I mean, there was one prominent news director in one particular city at one particular networker who was known for sort of rocking up to work late afternoon drunk after lunch and screaming at all of the reporters and staff and was known to have sexually harassed and this was ignored. And so there had to be a seismic cultural change occur in the television and broadcast news industry and maybe even the print news industry. There's
no question about that. The problems that we've got these days, though, are layered. Right. We've got this situation, we've really got
to try and have some kind of recourse. There has to be an opportunity for people to so there has to be some sort of panel or some sort of I don't know, tribunal set up that enables these people who've been accused to get their fair day in court, to put their case back and say, well, you know, this is what happened, and this is the part of the process that's lacking, which kind of leaves us in this horrible Salem witch hunt kind of territory where it's
like I can just accuse somebody and we do live in a culture now where the pendulum has swung a bit and false accusation becomes an issue, right because who likes their boss? Not many people like their boss. Not many people like being told, you know, when they've done something wrong or scolded at work. And I'm not saying that's the case here in any way, but it does and can happen. So you do have to have a
way for people to kind of defend themselves. Not all criticism is bullying, and not all you know, banter in the office is inappropriate harassment. So you know, it's where you draw the line what sort of culture are you fostering. But if you've got the HR team and the HR team aren't even across it, well, yeah, you've got some pretty deep problems happening, and that's clearly what's going on here.
Definitely, Damian Sophie, thank you so much for joining us. Unfortunately that's all the time we have for tonight, but thank you for joining us. We'll be back next Friday at the same time.