Vince is the Media show.
Good evening, Welcome to the Media Show. I'm Caroline de Russo coming up tonight. Channel ten has announced into a replacement program following the acting of the project. Will it make the same editorial mistake again?
Tucker Carlson clashes.
With Senator Ted Cruz in an interview which sent tongues wagging at a B Coleman will join me from the US with the details on that story, and we check in with Norman Swan where is he now that story and more with Jarreed Henderson later in the show. Now, there are rules and then there are rules, and an ABC journalist is in more than a little hot water for allegedly coming a cropper on one of the more
fundamental ones. Now Andrew Green, a journalist at the ABC for more than ten years, filed a report about how business is booming at naval shipyards in Germany. Well, that sounds pretty benign so far. But the issue is this Green apparently filed the story without disclosing that he went to Germany courtesy of Tyson Crump Marine Services. Tyson Crub's a shipbuilder looking to score navy contracts here in Australia and the ABC. Well, they are now investigating an ABC's
media watch. Well, they've also taken a swing at Green over this, and noted in their show that apparently the ABC was unaware the Green had gone to Germany at all, as he filed this story when he returned from personal leave. Here's a snippet.
Last week, listeners of AM's sister program, The World Today, heard Andrew Green filing another overseas report, this one from Germany. And this is how Green's report concluded. Listened closely for the disclosure.
Andrew Green reporting.
Not a dicky bird. And why not because no one at the abc knew Andrew Green had even gone to Germany as far as the abc knew, Green had just returned from some personal leave. In fact, act, the veteran reporter had traveled from Sydney to Dubai, to Germany and back again on a business class ticket that we estimate was worth about sixteen thousand dollars and staying in hotels in Hamburg and Keel, all of it paid for by none other than the German weapons company TKMS.
That's untidy, now, Matthew Not from the Sydney Morning Herald. He went on the same press trip to Germany. Germany, but at least he had the sense to disclose in his report that he had visited Germany courtesy of Tyson Krupt Marine Services. Joining me now for more on this is Managing editor at The Australian, Darren Davidson and Saxon Davidson of the Institute of Public Affairs. Darren, assuming these allegations are accurate, how big a miss is this by Green?
I think he really harms the ABC's credibility. It's really important for journalists to disclose paid trips or for meals as we call them in the business. They're very common.
They're probably becoming more commonplace, I would say, based on my observations in recent years, and look, they can be a really important part of reporting and the trip itself from what I can tell you know, it looks like it was worth doing from a news perspective, but the crucial thing was to disclose that it was funded by that defense contractor. Had he done that, I don't think there would be an issue there because the story looked
like it was actually worth worth doing. Defense security is a major major issue in Australia at the moment, as we know from a conference that The Australian actually held this week in camera on defense and Security and we had a keynote from Richard Miles, the Defense Minister and Acting Prime Minister, and we have sponsors for that conference,
but we you know, we're very transparent about them. Look, whether it was intentional or not, and I'm not clear on whether it was a deliberate omission or just a mistake, it's not great for the ABC's credibility and they really should have clarified that and had a PostScript to the story and apologize. And it's good to look, it's good that media watched to looking at that and they flagged it as well. Whether that's something to do with the fact that he was on leave at some point during
all of this, so after the triple during the trip. Again, I'm not clear on that, and those details may have something to do with it, but it is an important issue, and it's not like it was a travel trip, you know, to look at a spa or some kind of luxury resort. This this was a major, major story in terms of what's at stake here and the issues. It's a serious matter of defense and security and it should have been disclosed.
Very fair observation in Saxon For those who aren't across the ethics underlying journalism, how fundamental are they and how early on would something like this be drummed into you?
Oh?
Very early on.
I should preface this by saying that I've always thought the functions of the ABC should be privately funded, but obviously not like this. This seriously hurts the credibility of the ABC, as Darren just said. And also, ethics in journalism is there because people need to have trust in media institutions and people individually as journalists, and if those ethics are violated, as has been alleged, then the trust in you as a journalist and in the institution that
you represent is broken. And also people in glasshouses shouldn't throw stones. And quite often the ABC are the first to look at other media institutions to say, well, they violated this ethic or they violated that ethic. But the
ABC routinely make mistakes like this. We saw the doctored footage with the war in Afghanistan and obviously this mistake just made the ABC often do this and good on Media Watch for looking looking at the ABC, but unfortunately it's too infrequent and just honestly that people journalists just need to stay ethical and obviously that that spending on his flight should have been disclosed.
Now, after sixteen years, we've finally seen the demise of Channel tens the project. Its replacement will be called ten Years Plus and will be hosted by Amelia Brace and Denham Hitchcock, and it will apparently go to the hotly contested six pm timeslot, half an hour earlier than the project's previous timeslot. Now, the show was apparently targeted to a more mature audience, but Channel ten apparently has received warnings from within the industry that it needs to steer
clear of the progressive ideological bent which sank the project. Now, Darren, is this fair advice given you know the seismic change in the different demographics and how they consume their media, and how relevant is the move to the six pm time slot?
I think if look they ditch identity politics and lean into substantial substantive journalism, I think the project faltered. It was an innovative format in the early years, but it just became this, as you say, identity politics, a co chamber, and I think it just that kind of progressive activist approach to its it's journalism, I think, just lost audiences and this is an opportunity to regain their trust. I also agree with some of the commentary that I'm not
sure that the pivot will work. It sounds a bit like the Project two point zero to me. So let's see, and they are the third rated some notes fourth three to a linear channel, so they're going to have a really tough job winning back audiences. But it is an opportunity for them to build up that credibility and trust again with audiences. But I'd to be honest, I'd be betting against them doing that a bit with.
Me, and I think you're I think you're right there. If they are third or fourth, winning back that six pm time slot is a very very difficult ask. SAT's in the project was regularly beyond the satire. Is our media market just too small to the same to sustain something as progressive left as the Project?
I think it clearly is.
We have some forthcoming research at the IPA looking at when Wokeness in Australia peak and that found that around six months before the Voice referendum was when Wokeness in Australia peaked. Now was obviously reflected in the falling polls for the Voice, but also the project has also been suffering from falling ratings for quite a long time.
I would say almost.
A decade for a show that's sixteen years old, and for ratings to be failing for ten out of those sixteen years is quite a long time to be continuing to.
Just drag along.
The Australian media market is also fracturing. People receive their news from various different places and when you're, as Darren said, the fourth ranked freewow Are channel at the six pm slot, and the media is fracturing, obviously your programs are going to continue to drag along and fail.
Yeah, fair enough, and you low recall the social media band for children under sixteen. It was introduced last year by the Albanese government. It had bipartisan political support, but look to be fair, it was pretty polarizing with the the community.
Now.
Software trials commenced in January to find the most effective way of verifying age and the results were released this morning. Still with you, Saxon, what were the findings and will kids just be able to find a work around?
Well, there are various different software is being made available. Most prominently the face recognition, with some software finding within eighteen months, whereas frequently some teenagers have been found to be. The software as finding teenagers to allegedly been in their twenties or thirties. I'm a huge skeptic of this technology simply because there's a lot of variance in teenagers in
a period of puberty. And also there will obviously workarounds because people will just be using their siblings or their parents or their older friends to access social media. And ultimately I think that this social media ban is a trojan horse for digital id laws and ultimate censorship of the Internet doing that. This ban was brought in in the aftermath of the misinformation debate, which the government lost.
Yeah, but they're still trying, aren't they. They are still trying, and I don't think we've seen the end of that. Similarly, there was a great report in the AFR this week about a person's news habits and what it says about who they are and their age.
Darren.
From a media business perspective, how important is it to be agile and across a changing taste.
It's very difficult.
You've you've got you've got to be tech savvy, agile and then at the same time retaining you know, have a very tight editorial product in terms of your delivery, and at the same time retain your existing audience and entice new readers or new subscribers or new listeners or new viewers. It's it's really really tricky, and at the same time, you're you're grappling with the huge upheaval and
accelerated digital change in the media market. You know, we were grappling with the emergency the platforms Facebook, Amazon, TikTok and Google and have been for many years. And now we've got the GENI, which is both a huge opportunity for media businesses but also a bit of a threat
at the same time. And it's just you know, another kind of similar point adjacent to what we've just been discussing around the social media ban is that, you know, that's very well intentioned and we support greate scrutiny of social media and particularly if it's harmful to children, but the enforcement of that actually risks harming traditional media businesses because teenagers are more tech savvy than the regulators. They're
one step ahead of them. The age veriorification. Verification technology clearly isn't perfect, and that doesn't work and can't enforce these new standards. But what it does do is it stops the ad targeting technology that media businesses rely on to grow their pool of ad revenue from digital advertising. So it just purports actually harms the traditional media businesses and doesn't actually achieve the aim that it set out
to achieve in terms of harmful effects on children. So it's really really tricky.
Yeah, excellent observation, Darren Davis and Saxon Davidson. Thank you so much both for your time. Now after the break will be Goldberg compares the oppression of women in the Run to black people in the US. More on that shortly. Welcome back to Stars and Gripes, where we tear apart the actions of the better activists masquerading as journalists in the United States.
Now.
Tucker Carlson has been part of the US media landscape for a long time, and I mean a long time. Check out a babyface Carlson on cea Span back in the day.
Tucker Carlson as a staff writer for The Weekly Standard.
Good morning, thanks for being with us.
I don't know about this guy with the boat. I think you should pick on somebody it's on site, but I don't know what it would be. And this little Angland it's smile and he is pressure. But when he's on other programs and does not call.
In ooh, is he ever bad about talking about a Democrat?
And he's always been polarizing, but even more so since leaving the mainstream media. This week he interviewed Republican Senator Ted Cruz about the Israeli rank conflict. Now, he might be polarizing, but he knows how to ask the right questions of his guessed.
How many people living around? By the way, I don't know the population at all. No, I don't know the population. You don't know the population of the country. You seek to topple how many people living around? Ninety two million? Okay? Yeah, how could you not know that? I don't sit around memorizing population tables.
Well, it's kind of relevant because you're calling for the overthrow of the government.
Why is it relevant whether it will because ninety million or eighty million or a hundred million? Why because if you don't know anything about the country, I didn't say I don't know anything about Okay, what's the ethnic mix of wrong? They are Persians and were predominantly Shia. Okay, so you don't know anything about Iran.
And here's a little bit more.
By the way, Tucker, it's a very weird thing, the obsession with Israel. Well, we're talking about foreign country. You're not talking about Chinese, you're not talking about Japanese, and we're not talking about the Brits, you're not talking about the French. The question what about the Jews? What about the Jews?
Tell you Sam might now, Senator, you're just in the question, Tucker, You're asking why are the Jews controlling our foreign policy? That's what you just asked, hardly saying that, and I have that's exactly what.
You just said.
Boy, did this interview hit the headlines? CBS News Tucker Carlson spars with Ted Cruz on Israel Iran strikes, you don't know anything about Iran. Similarly, NBC News Tucker Carlson clashes with Ten Cruz, you don't know anything about Iran. And in USA Today, Tucker Carlson grills Ted Cruise on Iran, highlighting conservative rift. Joining me now for more on this
is wrong Speak. Publishing founder and author of the new book The Children We Left Behind, Adam B. Coleman Adam Tucker has some pretty unorthodox views, but he understands the fundamentals of journalism. He knows how to test his guests on their knowledge of the subject matter. How fair is that as an observation, If.
I'm completely honest, I wasn't a fan of this interview, or at least the clips that have come out of it so far. And the moment where he asked them the population numbers he didn't know. But when he asked him, well, what's the ethnic makeup at cruise, was attempting to answer the question and briefly cut him off and attempted to say, well, did say that he knows nothing about it? Around meanwhile,
he was actually giving me an answer. I think if this was Donald Trump and it was NBC News interviewing Donald Trump in the same fashion, who say this is not real journalism, this is antagonism, This is a gotcha moment that they're trying to pull. And throughout all the different clips that have come out, what I see from Tucker Carlson is not being inquisitive. What he's doing is a c and using bad faith tactics.
In my opinion, Now, the Israel around conflict it has caused a rift amongst conservatives in the US. What do you think to the extent, do you think that Tucker is representative of that rift within mainstream conservatives or do you think he's just moved to the fringe.
I think there are varying viewpoints because the Republican Party is a mixture of what I would call traditional conservatives. You could also say disaffected liberals in general, anti war people who are part of the bank of movements, since it's much more of the populist movement. So there are different factions who support either going towards war with Iran or away from war with Iran for various reasons. So
it's not to say that Tucker is fringe. Tucker just represents one of many viewpoints that exists amongst the Republican Party. Would necessarily say that this is a purely conservative situation. This is what you have. This is the type of situation you deal with in a populous movement.
Yeah, fair enough. Now, it was only two years ago that news Max was caughting Carlson to join their channel. They've since gone cold on the idea. They've recently described him as being irrelevant. What in your view is the reason for this quite a significant It appears about face.
Well, I guess it could be Tucker's view choice, I'm sorry, Tucker's choice of having certain guests on. In my opinion, it could have been his interview with Vladimir Putin, which was very cordial, far more cordial than how he treated Ted Cruz. So you know, it could be some very conspicuous interviews, certain viewpoints that he's more free to espouse now that he's not under the shackles of Fox News. So I think there are various reasons why people are feeling more hands off of them now.
Of course, when it comes to bad takes in the media on the Middle East, nothing quite compares to the view.
But your twenty twenty five the United States is nothing like if I step foot wearing this.
Younger, I'm sorry.
I mean, I can't have my hair showing.
I can't wear a skirt, I can't have my think it's very different to live in the United States in twenty twenty five than it is to live in an You're black, not for everybody, not.
Every black guys don't go to Koran.
And you know, let me tell you about being in this country. This is the greatest country in the world.
But yeah, I know that.
I know that, and we all know that. But every day we are worried. Do we have to be worried about our kids? Are their kids going to get shot because they're running through somebody's neighbor.
Adam, No matter the subject matter, Whoopi Goldberg invariably tries to jam everything through her very narrow worldview. But this is a bit ridiculous, isn't it.
Yeah, extremely ridiculous. I personally know people who are Christians who left Iran decades ago for being persecuted as Christians. So this idea that the United States is on par with the Iran, Well, if she actually feels that way, she's a multimillionaire. Why she's still here. You know, there are people who have nothing from across the world who take their last dollar to come to the United States
to flee persecution. That this multimillionaire has a lot of complaints about this country, about its inherent nature, Well why stay? There must be something about Oh wait, it's also the greatest country in the world. So she has to wrestle with both things. Is it the greatest country in the world? And that yes, every country has its problems or is it on par with the Iran So it's not the greatest country in the world, So which one is it?
So?
I think this is much of herbbloviating from her geta community.
A very conflicted position.
Indeed.
Now, last week, the Trump administration held a military possession to celebrate the two hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the US Army.
Now, there was.
Plenty of commentary and criticism around this event, and it sparked a No King's protest. Take a look. Now, No, obviously this was reported by media outlets as you would expect, but CBS News however, took the awkward step of appearing to promote the sale of No King's merchandise. It did cause quite a bit of backlash online. Did they go a step too far?
Yeah?
Absolutely? Where's the journalistic integrity? Where is being impartial? And listen, I'm off for out the that are not partial. You know, that are not impartial, that have a bias. I'm all for that, but just don't pretend to be otherwise. If they want to be a left wing outlet, come out and say we're a left wing outlet, but don't lie to us and claim otherwise. So you know, this whole no King's thing is absolutely absurd, and it doesn't surprise
me that this network has gotten behind it. Everyone has become highly irrational about something that ultimately is what any other country would do celebrate its military. We have moments throughout this country, like Memorial Day, where we celebrate our military for a particular reason. These are people who sacrifice their lives. These are people who do the things that many of us aren't brave enough to do ourselves, including myself.
So this idea that Trump is a king for highlighting the greatness of our military is absolutely absurd.
Now post the BLM rights and I thought nothing could so prize me anymore. But here are some of the media low lights when it comes to how the US media reported on the recent LA riots.
The scene here has been pretty pretty quiet, almost festival like for the last hour or so. We just heard a flash bang, we just heard another one, But in general last night was pretty nonviolent standoff here.
There's a large group of people. It could turn very volatile if you move law enforcement in there in the wrong way and turn what is just a bunch of people having fun watching cars burn into a massive confrontation.
There is no vicious and violent mob in Los Angeles. The National Guard troops are doing absolutely nothing, The Marines are invisible and obviously doing absolutely nothing, and peaceful protesters have been peacefully submitting to.
Arrests Adam having fun watching cars burning. Has the media just been consistently bad or have they reached a new low?
It's a good question. I don't know if you can go lower than twenty twenty tactics. They've been consistently bad, to say the least. You know, the new American pastime I thought was something else other than watching cars burn. And if the military is doing nothing, why were they freaking out that Trump was in in the military. If the military does nothing, then what's the harm of them doing nothing?
You know?
So this entire translation as to what's happening in Los Angeles is much like George Orwell where he's saying, don't believe you're lying eyes right. What we're seeing is, yes, obviously cars are on fire, but it's not the entire city that's on fire. But it's bad enough that the car is on fire. If your kitchen was on fire, would you just say, well, it's just the kitchen that's on fire, or would you be very concerned that the rest of your house is going to burn down too?
So this is much of a manipulation in lying to the American public about what they're actually seeing for themselves and doing it live on television, and they wonder why the American public does not trust them.
Now, recently, a journalist, Terry Moran was fired from the ABC for launching a scathing attack on Donald Trump and he's chief of staff Steve Miller. He's since said that he stands by his comments. What's the story here, what's the update here?
Well, essentially the story is, you know the ABC News wants to appear impartial, and you know they have a lot of anchors and journalists who have a hard time not showing their biases. So yeah, he's fired. So now he feels free to say that he doesn't feel bad for what he's actually had to say. And of course he can get the resistance left, the blue and non conspiracy theorists and all these other people to get behind him and support him. I believe he even a sub stack.
So now he found another way to capitalize off of him getting fired, just like other journalists have. So I think that's essentially what's going to happen to him. He's going to go and try to be independent, so to speak, but he's going to feel free to be more open about how he actually feels.
Well, we can expect some of that language to dial up then. I expect now, lastly, a report out this week about how Americans get their news. In this report, what piqued your interests? What was the highlight here?
Well, I think the main thing is that social media is far more important than traditional television, and none of that shocks me. Whatsoever you have. The mainstream media has lost credibility over the years. Their main demographic is basically boomers, and any sort of product that relies off of aging population is a product that's doomed to fail at some point, whereas social media has a much more youth oriented interest
a wide range of American public interests. As far as consuming the information there, I will say that because of social media, there's a lot of information that is out there. It's hard to decipher what is true and what is not because there are things that are legitimately fake and there are things that are bias. So it's it is harder to understand the information that is coming across. But we're in this environment because the old Guard let the
American public down. They chose to chase clicks, they chose to chase outrage and deceive the American public, and they're doing it to their own demise.
Yeah, that is an excellent observation. Adam Bay Coleman, thank you for your time. After the break, ABC Radio National is all talk about diversity of voices, prising.
Welcome back.
Joining the show as he does each and every week, is Guy News. Australia Media watchdog columnist Jared Henderson. Jared, there's now a lack of evening current affairs shows on the ABC following the demise of Late Line, the drama now Q and A This and Network tends. Decision to dump the project was discussed on Insiders last Sunday, but they forgot to mention a key point.
I just wanted to also point out it's been a tough week for many in the industry with the news that the project your show will aid and Q and A coming to an end. Having occasionally appeared on the project and occasionally hosted Q and A, disappointing to hear this news. And Greg, you wrote a wonderful lament for Q and A during the week as well. I think discussion programs about news and current affairs are always important. So thoughts with.
All of those in Jared what was missing from the analysis or.
What's missing any explanation? I mean, why did these programs fail? Why is it that after block of a night the ABC cannot run a current affairs program I like the BBC in Britain can And the reason is because essentially they were left wing dominated programs which were devoid of viewpoint diversity. Now, Greg Sheridan said he'd been on it many times, I think over twenty times, but he was the kind of the token conservative you'd drag on the
program and he enjoyed that. But for the most part, if you had a panel of five, four of them are on the left, usually plus the presenter, and plus a rather left wing audience. So after a while it became very boring. So what's missing that the ABC is viewpoint diversity and no one recognizes that. So even when that program's wound up, and the Project as well, which was also dominated by the left, when these programs are wound up, it's like that they suddenly died or something.
But they didn't suddenly die. They had a sudden death because they became boring because there was no program diversity, and they were dominated by left wing thought and they had left wing viewers, but they lost all their conservative viewers and others who wanted something interesting.
Well, I think they died a slow death and then a very sudden death. Or Yes, the diversity of views is that there is not an issue just for those particular shows. And we've discussed this on the program before. When Nick Bryant commenced as a presenter of ABC Radio National Saturday Extra, he promised a diversity of voices. Let's have a look how that's going.
He has not invoked the Insurrection Act, so I'm not clear what legal authority he has to send marines to into Los Angeles. He is always threatening to invoke the Insurrection Act. If he does threaten to invoke the Insurrection Act, then we have a kind of hit Nazi enabling Act kind of moment where after the life stugfire. That's what
we authoritarianism scholars have always been looking for. That, you know, declared emergency that will allow sort of military power, the president to take military powers.
Your reaction to that, well, I mean, that's absolute Tosh. You've got an Nick Bryant didn't query it. He You've got a Yale professor who should know better, comparing the possibility that President Trump may enact an Insurrection Act with the Enabling Acts, which were implemented by the Nazi Nazis in Germany after the Reichstark Fire which they started and
then blame the Left for it. And the Enabling Act was the one act coming in in nineteen thirty three after the fire that made possible all the other Nazi atrocities Nazi German acrossities in Germany and elsewhere, made them legal under the legal system. So this is what this professor from Yale is saying, without correction from Nick Bryant, who also should know better, is that Trump is just
like Hitler was. Trump in twenty twenty five is just about like Hitler was in nineteen thirty three, and that
is that is an appalling thing to say. It doesn't do any justice whatsoever to the victims of Nazi Germany, but it's also a distortion, and young people in particular listening in to that may think there's a comparison because he has a learned Our professor and he's not corrected by a learned British Australian journalists like mcbrian, And he should have been corrected because it is just completely wrong and it gives a false impression not only of current
in the United States, but also of historical Germany through the thirties into the early forties.
But Jared, I mean, you get two lawyers in a room, you have three different opinions, right, So it's very well that professor may have had his view, but there's absolutely no reason if you're going to have diversity of views to at least have someone on there who might have a more measured view of these sorts of things.
Well, that's a good point.
I mean, I don't have any objection to anyone appearing on the ABC pretty well, I mean I don't object to that, but when their views are not challenged. Now, if you want to have an interesting discussion, you get in and there are plenty of people in Australia. You don't need to go to our university to pick one up.
You get some who knows something about European history in the first half of the twentieth century, which Nick Bryan should, and then you have a discussion as to whether whether what Trump is doing in the United States is in any way comparable to what Hitler did in Germany in nineteen thirty three. In my view, the answer is no. I'm happy. I would be happy to argue that with Professor Stanley, but no one argued it with him. It was like he was laying down the truth, and he
wasn't laying down the truth. He was laying down a historical myth and it ought to be in challenge. And if you had viewpoint diversity in the studio, you'd have an argument. But that's gone by and large now. And as part of his promises early on, as you mentioned, Nick, Bryan's pretty well gone back to getting a whole range of left wing commentators on like it was before he took over earlier this year.
Now, let's listen to this interview from ABC Radio National Breakfast. Here is Sally Sara. She's discussing the bombing of Iranian state media studios. We CNN's Christina Munpaul.
It's been a deadly twelve months for journalists. Scores of journalists have been killed in Gaza, and we also saw that Iranian state television came under attack how do you reflect on this time for your profession and how do you see that attack in Iran?
Well, that's correct.
Generally these are civilian targets, whether it's state or not.
Many authoritarian regimes have increasingly tried to kill the messenger.
Jared a quick answer from you, because I still got one topic I want to get to, but it seems like they've left out some crucial context here.
Well, Israeli's got the free as media in the Middle East, one of the three is medias in the world. And secondly, the target that was bombed, the Iranian radio television station, is simply an arm of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. It's an agent of the Uranian theocracy. It's not something that Israel's hitting because it doesn't want to hear the opinions. We know the opinions that comes out of there. So again it's just a distortion. It ought to be corrected.
She's entitled to be on interview in Australian televisions. He's an interesting present, but she ought to be contested.
Fair enough.
And just finally, I'm sure we all remember Norman Swan. He was once hard is Australia's most trusted doctor. He's now been reduced to this.
So you know, long times since I've practiced, there was no such thing as telehealth and those ancient days in the day.
Jared bite the downgrade well on these various books. He was presented as and at the ABC as a Australia's most trusted doctor. But when I started criticizing that at my media watchdog, it came down to one of Australia's most practiced doctors, most trusted doctors, but in fact he hasn't practiced for about four decades now. He's knowledgeable about medicine, but he's not a practicing doctor. And he suddenly, he
finally said it on ABC Radio last Saturday. So I noticed it and I thought, ah, he hasn't practiced for a long time. He hasn't practiced for a long time, so he's not a practicing doctor. And finally, finally we found out from the man himself, the ABC's doctor in the House.
Jared Anderson, thank you so much for joining us tonight, and that's all we have time for this evening. Up next is Newsnight