Welcome to Stars and Gripes, where we highlight those in the US media who have shread all pretense of ethical reporting to become activists. And first to the Associated Press and MSNBC, two newsrooms which have knowingly published misinformation about the Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard to make it look like she is POWs with Putin.
Just today, Tulsey Gabbert said that Putin and Trump are quote very good friends.
The Associated Press made the same reckless and false claims, leading to the story eventually being deleted. The New York Post had the details. The Associated Press has retracted a story published Monday which wrongly claimed that the Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard said that President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin were good friends. The story was false because Gabbard was talking about Trump and Indian Prime
Minister Norenda Mody, not Putin. MSNBC then had to air this humiliating correction.
Last night, we reported on excerpts of an interview between the Director of National Intelligence Telsa Gabbard and an Indian TV news network in which she said that Trump was good friends with a world leader. We said that world leader was Vladimir Putin that the full interview shows that Gabbard was referring to Trump an Indian prime minister mody.
We'll clear that up.
Well.
As one critic of this saga noted online, the media is always loud when making the original allegation, an oddly quiet when correcting the record. Let's bring in Sky New's contributor Kosha Garda to discuss this was a shoka and it was a shaka that you have to assume that it was knowingly done because it was so obvious listening to it and reading the transcript that that's not what she was saying at all.
So the only conclusion you.
Can draw is mass incompetence or they've just knowingly verbaled her in the worst possible way.
Yes, I think that those are the two correct endpoints of the spectrum there for sure. That either it's mass incompetence and just sort of a laziness. Maybe that the people fronting these brands rely wholly on staff to put together the talking points that they read off the teleprompter and don't do their own work or don't apply their own common sense check all the way to the other end, that it's something a little bit more nefarious and deliberate,
you know. I think the big picture is not pretty because it just underscores that much of the mainstream media is still caught up in the Russia Mania, which was a big theme in Trump's first term, and that's why
they were so quick to leap to that conclusion. I will say that I'll give them a little bit more credit than years past, noting that's a low bar in terms of the prominence of the correction because in the past, you know, whether it was a hunter Byden laptop story or Russia Mania, or giving themselves Pulitzer Prizes for their reporting on the Russia hoax and all the rest of it, there were no retractions or corrections actually from many things
that are still up there versus now. Stephanie Rule of MSNBC did actually use airtime on her next day's show to correct that, and the AP took down the story with the correction on the bottom, so it's not living on in the internet. I find that a little bit interesting that it's a small improvement, but maybe Trump and Maga world are finally cracking through a little bit and slightly shifting the way they operate in the mainstream media.
Yeah, I totally agree with you. I think that there's been a slight switch. I think it's being more prominent on CNN than MSNBC. America is in the grips of domestic terror attacks on Tesla vehicles, but some in the media have disgustingly been cheering on this violence as some sort of legitimate form of resistance. But before we get to that, it's important to see the scale of the damage.
That we were talking about.
Some breaking news that we are following for you this hour, and this has to do with these Tesla attacks that we have been seeing in recent weeks. We now are learning that Attorney General Pambondi has announced charges against three people in domestic terrorism attacks on Tesla's Three people accused of destroying Tesla cars and charging stations are now facing up to twenty years in prison for domestic terrorism. US
Attorney in General Pambondi announced just moments ago. She said in a statement as well, the days of committing crimes without consequence have ended. Let this be a warning if you join this wave of domestic terrorism against Tesla properties, the Department of Justice will put you behind bars.
If you blow up the cause of innocent, random people. Because of ideology, you are a terrorist. It's not simple. Even now, ABC here in Australia has conceded the attacks have the whole marks of terrorism. But listen to the language from mainstream yet hardcore activist journalists who are encouraging Americans to resist the Trump present and see and protest a private company not even linked to the government. They call the protests remarkable and organic.
There's something really remarkable happening right now. I'm not sure people have really quite gotten their arms around this. We are seeing this organic, bottom up movement against Muss signature company Tesla. Some activists just put up a website with a simple message, right sell your Tesla's dump your stock, and then an entire Tesla takedown movement has sprung up in response. They've got a map where all the protests are planned all across the country. It's been happening for
about a month. This weekend alone, there are more than one hundred protests planned at dealerships Tesla dealerships across the country, from Brooklyn to Toledo, Dallas to Grand Rapids, Raleigh, dozens more there. Even as you might see, they're a handful planned in Candon in the UK, and I'm going to tell you something. I wager next weekend there will be even more in the weekend after that more.
Yes, I imagine there will be even more protests next week because MSNBC has just broadcast a rolling list of where every single one is being held and directed people to the organizer's website. Now do you remember the outrage from journalists over people supposedly encouraging January sixth violence. These people are so blind to their biases that they do not understand the similarities here. Now, Kosher, let's bring you in because I'd love to get your views on this.
I think there's a fine line between covering the story and then romanticizing with some of these protesters in a way which could give credence to the view that you want people to go there. You see this presenter talking with this sign that says resistance behind him. It's a very positive connotation towards the protests. He clearly thinks these protests are a great idea, but in reality, Tesla owners are being targeted, Tesla's are being blown up, people are
being charged with terrorism. It seems like an odd tone for a professional news organization to take when discussing the story.
Definitely, and that is a fine line, but it's a very very serious line, because this is a very serious matter.
You know.
Chris Hasler said that he finds it remarkable and organic. I would agree with him on the first part. It is remarkable, but not for the reasons he thinks it does not appear organic. I think I have no evidence of this, but I think it would be a safe assumption that there are these types of agitator groups and sources of funding out there. We know this that seem to be able to flip a switch basically an unleash very much organized protest. It appears grassroots, but you peel
back the surface and it isn't. That would be my educated guess, fat to wager one. And in terms of that fine line, you know, they need to be careful because the media, for good reason, has very strong protection, strongest in the world in America because of the First Amendment, and the bar is very high for any sort of
legal exposure that any media personality would potentially face. However, here, if it does get proven that this is domestic terrorism, and Trump has said that, and Pambondi is ag has also indicated that, as you mentioned, there is a statute. It's a little bit more difficult for good reason for the president to designate domestic terrorist groups versus foreign terrorist groups, or he has a lot more leeway, But there are
statutes in place. I think it's twenty three thirty one in the United States Code number eighteen that actually has a definition for terrorism, and they're working their way through that in the courts. If that happens, then this becomes very serious and it gives more power to the DOJ in terms of the types of remedies and prosecutoral action
they can bring against these folks. And then for Chris Hayes and MSNBC and others to be skirting that line, if you could prove that they're kind of aiding and embedding something that is actually a designated domestic terror group, that gets a little bit more dicey for them. So they might want to take that into consideration when they.
Do this reporting.
Yeah, it's a really good point. And whether or not they are able to successfully prosecute under the definition of terrorism or domestic terrorism, it doesn't change the fact that if you had a news organization actively showing people where to protest, say a Joe Biden presidency on January sixth, They would be outrage if the protest ended up being violent, or if they were violent acts that stemmed from that.
And I think that what this is exposing. I think a lot of conservatives already noticed that because there's a lot of looting, and then there was already a lot of fires that weren't I didn't have the same scope on it. But what do you make of the fact that there is this hypocrisy. They don't seem to be aware of the fact that they're ignoring that distinction.
It's so true.
I mean, they really are in this bubble or echo chamber where whether it was the j six protests and riots or whether it was Black Lives Matter, just the way they've framed the issue and covered it versus the way they're covering this. It's so obvious to anyone who's not in that bubble. And you know, they are in a crisis of credibility, as are in many institutions right
now in America and all across the world. And I think the only way to remedy that, really it doesn't feel like it can happen from the existing talent that's up and down in the organization now. The only way would be to inject new talent, new conservative leaning voices into mainstream journalism. You're seeing them do a little bit in that direction, you know, with the firing of Joy Read and Jeff Bezos taking control of editorial a little
bit more on the Washington Post and so on. But the next thing has to be to get other people who don't live in that echo chamber on the air, in their newspaper columns to present that point of view that you just did, Jack, And that's the only way to encounter that bias. That is clearly such a blind spot for them because they just only live and breathe and talk to I think people in very similar thinking, and they're missing out on how most of the rest of the country sees these issues.
Yeah, well, we'll keep a close eye on it. New polls are in and it isn't looking good for the Democrats. In fact, it is so bad that my favorite left wing talk show host John Stewart took a spray at his own side of politics.
Dems keep fecklessly complaining until the forty eight approval comes down to forty which is a plan, but it's forgetting one crucial piece of information in Schumer's popularity.
Calculation, devastating cascading numbers for Democrats. Only twenty seven percent of voters have a positive view of the party, the lowest favorability rating in their history of NBC's polling.
You're a twenty seven person. You've got to get Trump to lose eight points of popularity just for you to get to the point where you're thirteen points below him. Your approval is only seven points above where it turns red and goes into low power mode.
Kosher, He's so funny. I really wish he was one of us. But I think that what John Stewart's really good at here is when he notices that there is this massive issue what we were just talking about, with this hypocrisy and everything, the Democrats have positioned themselves. They've been wedged to being on the side of terrorists and
people who are looting and burning down. It's a really untenable position from the being and it's going to be really hard for them to capture mainstream America back if their position is well, it is a legitimate form of resistance to blow up a test life if that is their position they will lose every single time.
Yes, that one. There are other eighty twenty issues where they are just really throwing down on the twenty percent. The boys and men playing in sports for girls and women is another one. It's an eighty twenty issue, including Democrat voters do not want that, but they keep throwing down.
We've seen examples of this. And the other one is deporting violent criminal gang members is another one where eighty percent of the country, Republican or a Democrat, agrees with that as a principle as a philosophy, and they're not so All those examples show that there is a disconnect between some of these leading indicators like John Stewart, Van Jones, Bill Maher, some of those guys who are a little bit ahead of the curve from the left with diagnosing
the reality that's facing the party right now. But and what they're saying versus you know what the voices in the room and on the air are throwing down with such as these issues that I just mentioned. And until that disconnect is closed, that gap is closed, it looks like this downwards viral is continuing. I found that poll remarkable too, that it's the lowest point twenty seven points of approval, as you showed in that chart, is the lowest since the nineteen nineties, which is a Clinton years.
So it's fascinating. It's even the Obama years, which were a peak popularity for the Democrats, have sort of come and gone and they're way back to where they were an entire generation to go. So this is a big deal, and they've got to figure out how to regroup, realign on a message, and come back to the middle a little bit if they want to regain their popularity, and.
Just quickly, how do they do that if there is no willingness to move away from identity politics. If you said, and I completely agree with that eighty twenty issue on women in men's sports, it seems like a fundamental part of the Democratic Party, And how can the party move away from an issue that is just so toxic to the general public.
I think, you know, the only way out of this for them is through and they really have to have a and look in the mirror and just realign on some of those eighty twenty issues and let go of the twenty percent of the base. It's maybe more rabid and louder and squeakier and getting all of their attention. The other thing is there isn't any obvious leader in
the party right now. Usually you need a leader who can do that and corral the group and reorient everybody around a winning message or two, around the working class, economics, sports and all these things. And nobody has stepped into that void. There are some familiar faces popping up, obviously, but that's another clear gap. So they need a good leader and they have to be willing to recalibrate closer to the mainstream of American opinion.
Koshagatta, thank you so much for your insights. A quick break then, Jared Henderson joins us to pick apart some questionable moves by ABC management.
Welcome back.
Joining me now as he does each and every week, is Sky News, Australia's media watchdog columnist Jared Henderson. Now, thank you very much for you your list of grievances this week, as I like to call them, we spotted some great ones, including we've got the Global Affairs editor John Lyons, and we've spoken about some of his commentary in Israel. Well, he's had a little bit of a shift of appointment and let's have a listen to how it was announced.
John.
First of all, I mean we've had you on this show many times, but congratulations on your new appointment.
Well, thank you, James.
It's great to be trying to translate the Trump presidency to an Australian audience.
There is a there's a very negative sting on there, and the point that I would make as well, if you look at the polling. We've already discussed it earlier in the show, but the polling has been rather positive for Trump, so it doesn't really matter what Australians think of Trump, but back there they're positive about some of the things he's doing. Whereas John Lyons has to go in there and essentially make the case that he has to explain the chaos of a Trump.
President's going to translate Trump for Australia. You and I we can get a translation of Trump if we listened to John, who's now over there for a couple of years. Apparently pretty nice position because they've already got three people there, so why they needed John Lyons, I don't know. And in any event, if you want to know what's going on in the United States, to get a much better coverage on Sky News and Fox News, and the lead up to the last election, for example, than you ever
did on the ABC. But now John's there to translated for us. That's okay. So he's an anti he's an Israel antagonist, and he's now gone to the United States where he's a Trump antagonist, but he's going to translate it for us.
Do you think he's been shifted because of criticism.
I have no knowledge of that, but it wouldn't surprise me. I mean, it's an easy way to move him, and I think originally he was probably moved because he wanted the job of director of News and he didn't get it and went to Justin Stevens, and so they gave him the Global Affairs editorship. Now he's been in controversy on that, and now they've given him the America's editor So maybe they want to move him around because he's needed,
or maybe it's a convenient place to put him. Bear in mind, it's only a year or so ago that he that he virtually supported a vote of no confidence in their ABC management manager, David Anderson, which is I mean in.
That place is a circus, isn't it? Well?
In any commercial organization, if you've voted if you've voted a vote of no confidence in the Chief executive, you'll be out the door in the afternoon. But in the ABC they give you two plumb appointments to keep you quiet. I think that's my interpretation. Of course I could be wrong.
Yeah, well, moving on now, because you've spotted some a very soft interview in seven thirty. It's the ABC's flagship show, Current Affairs Show, and they gave Jim Chalmers what I think we could all argue is a little bit of a soft go.
Now.
You've described the one point two billion hit from Cyclone Alfred as a quote big new pressure on the budget. As important as this is with government spending forecast at about seven hundred and thirty billion this financial year, is emphasizing this a form of misdirection ahead of the budget.
Of course it isn't.
And then straight after that Ferguson spent a very long time with Laura Tingle criticizing Peter Dutton.
It's sounding really much like policy on the run and that's making his colleagues very nervous. We're only maybe a week from the election being called and Peter Dutton still saying don't worry, it will announce our policies in the election campaign.
Laura Tingle, thank you very much indeed for coming in to explain that today's events. Thank you, Thanks.
Sarah, rather extraordinary commentary. Laura Tingle's got form here, but there's a vitriol that comes through when she talks about Peter Well.
Sarah Ferguson's wrong. She did not explain today's events. She had a go at Peter Dutton and she didn't mention the treasurer. And now, of course the big issue, I mean, wherever you stand politically, the big issue at the moment is the deficit and debt in economic terms. But that Laura Tingle didn't touch that and said she's the whole session. She does part into Peter Dutton and we know where she sounds on Peter Dutton. It's sort of she doesn't
like him, you know, and that's pretty evident. But if you've got a political correspondent reporting on today the days of ensn Canbra, you should report on the days of ENS and Canberra. And there were more stories around than Peter Dutton on that day, for sure.
There's no neutrality in her language. Everything just has to be this negative stem and it's so obvious to anybody watching.
Well, she can't hide it, and she probably doesn't try to hide it. But so she's not much good into hypocrisies.
I mean she I could just imagine all the producers cheering when she gets off set.
Oh yeah, that's happened at the ABC. It happened when I was supporting the Republic and I'd come out the door and that all be cheering. But when I supported John Howard on IRAQ B, I wouldn't talk to me.
Well, finally we're going to have another look some anti Israel bias that we've picked up.
This time it's Sally Sarah.
The Israeli government says that your office is anti Semitic and the allegations in these incidents are false. Did the Israeli government take part in the investigations behind this report?
The Israeli government, from the very beginning of our commission in twenty twenty one, has refused to cooperate with us in any way.
It obstructs our work at every opportunity.
They lie constantly.
Now, Jared some very bold claims, but also equally, when this same reporter gets people from the Israeli side very hostile, The questioning it doesn't really give that same kind of latitude.
What do you make of it? All?
Well, Chrystidity is in Australian, he's an Israeli Israel antagonist and then they got on a former Israel Defense Forces commentator and it was just put to him that he was into genocide. So in a sense he was being verbal. But Chrystidity got a very solf run and the report, the head of that report one who puts that, who put who signs off on that. She's also a well
known Israeli antagonist. But what it was, what was being put around is that you had to believe this report from the United Nations, and we all know that the United Nations, large sections of it are very hostile to Israel. So it's not at all balanced. I mean, there's there's an interview on Friday which is soft on the critics of Israel, and an interview on the following Monday which
is incredibly hard on the supporters of Israel. And that goes on all the time, and it happened again this morning and I'll cover that next week, I expect, if not here in Momentia Watchdog Blog look.
Forward to reading it. Jerry Henderson, thank you so much for joining us as always. Now that's all the time that we have for this evening, but up next is Newsnight.