This is the Media Show with Jack Outing, Hello and welcome to the Media Show. Tonight we discussed fallout from Donald Trump's controversial South Africa press conference, and later on we sit down with Media watchdog columnist Jared Henderson. But first big news this week with the coalitions splitting apart. But when it seemed that differences could maybe be put aside and the parties could potentially return, the press pack got fired up.
Seeing the van enough.
But at the ABC, their star reporter Patricia Carvellis was furious that she, a woman, didn't have the spotlight take a question. I feel like there's a lot of blokes that have been asking questions.
Be nice if I could ask the question, Tricia Carvellos.
Thank you very much.
Carvellis was suggesting that the Nationals were being sexist and only allowing men to ask a question. And was it true.
I don't know.
So you're getting back together?
No, this all our time, the.
Announcement of these portfolio allocations.
You can see that you've got.
The gun on.
The analyses like nuclear are have got to go through the legal party there under review, are about to be under review.
The subject to review.
If it is a no, what then.
Why was this decision made with haste on Tuesday?
One person and McKenzie if.
We can, And not only was it not true, but Carvellis doesn't even follow her own logic.
I've just observed this.
I'd actually like to ask you, David Little Proud, actually get at mine.
So let's break this down. Carvellos falsely slanders the politicians as being sexist, and then when she has the chance to ask a question, she tells the senior female politician to get out of the road because Carvellos would rather talk to a man instead. And David Little Proud had already taken dozens of questions, but mackenzie had just stepped forward for a few moments when Carvellis dismissed her what a mess, lies, attention seeking, temper tantrums and most importantly,
not a shred of journalism. Well joining me now for this and more. As Sky News contributor James Bolt, I mean, it's just so typical of their ABC to make it all about them. But the real issue with this is it wasn't even grounded in reality. And I actually would be much more forgiving if it was the case that women were being pushed aside and there were only blokes asking questions, and there was this happening, but it was all in her head. She just confected this.
Well, I actually feel a bit sorry for Patricia Carrvellis here because she is Patricia carl Bellis right, She's gone to a press pack. This is beneath her and she walks in. She'd be expecting a hush to just come over the room, all these journals looking nervously around like oh here she's here, and instead like they've got their own questions. She doesn't know how to do with that actually was supposed to ask, like they were all supposed
to go, well, what does Patricia Carvellis think? So, you know, it couldn't possibly be that her influence is starting to weigh in, or that people don't look up to her as much as she once did. So the only answer left is that they must have all been sexist, not wanting a woman to ask a question.
That must be there is I could I agree there's a degree of ego at play here, isn't it?
Well?
I thought, sorry, I thought Bridge McKenzie, Like when Patricia Cavellis in that clip goes, you know it's time a woman ask a question. Bridge McKenzie goes, Patricia carvellis like a regal, like everyone can calm down.
She rolls out the red carpet for her. There's also that the inconsistency as well. And so I would have thought from an idy logical point of view, if you really want diverse viewpoints and the interviewer doesn't matter as much as the subject, and so if you want to be consistent with that way of thinking, and I think it is a I think it's a diabolical way of thinking because you're not treating somebody by the substance. You're putting people into these identitarian baskets. And I think it's
very problem path to go down. The ABC is obviously they're well down that road anyway, So you can see why she's like that. But wouldn't you want to hear from the woman then if you really do care about diversity and she's just dismissed her.
Well, let's look at the question and that she asked.
It was about the timeline for negotiations on the agreement and when the shadow Cabinet would be announced, Like that's the only question that can really appeal to like the elite journalists of the time that's a woman starts as a female perspective as well.
It had already been asked by the way, it had been asked and answered, asked and answered by several different people, including multiple women, And we played the grab of all those women who were asking questions and Patricia Carvelliser just I guess erased them from her mind.
They don't matter.
But yeah, ladies at Bridget Mackenzie, you can't answer that question.
It's the obvious question that.
All of them were exactly. She's in the room. There's four people in the room, she's one of them. She could have answered that, but no, she wanted the man to take it very telling. Let's move on, though, because the coalition split is driving headlines and taking journalists away from their core function at a time like this, scrutinizing a government with a supermajority, and it is this type of petty infighting that voters to test and the media loves.
Liberally to Ted O'Brien on the show last night, and he agreed this morning at a courtesy we told him Matt Canavan was coming on too. All seemed okay, and then twenty minutes ago his team rang saying he won't come on with Canadan.
I mean, you can't make it up. It's like maths the canber Edition. Eventually, Ted O'Brien did finally appear on today, but you could reach out and touch the tension in the air.
Well, I'll tell you what.
I'm just going to get out of the way of this and let you guys sort it out, because otherwise it's going to sound too much like a funeral. So if you want to start, Bridget, I'll start with who caused the breakup?
Whose fault was it?
Because Susan Lee disputes your account of the dispute? Do you dispute that?
Can I just say sorry? Go ahead, Bridge?
Yeah, I think he was asking me a question.
He don't mind.
And of course it's funny to make these people out to be jaded ex lovers because you know, and I don't begrudge anyone in the media turning this into a joke, but it is Australians who suffer when we stop talking about a powerful new government and what they're doing to dissect the drama of those without power. James. That are awkward moment where Ted O'Brien interjects Carl is loving it
by the way. I thought. He did a brilliant job and people will note he kept making maths references and obviously that's one of Channel nine's that's their premiere show. It's a very clever way to plug it. Oh you know, I feel like these politicians have walked into this not knowing that he's literally making fun of them, and they're just walking into it accepting it.
Yeah.
Well, I think for Ted O'Brien, he dug his own grave in his sense, like once the story is out that you cancel the interview because you were scared of Matt Canavan, you can't then turn around and go you know, I'm alwaso scared of Brincea McKenzie and then you look silly.
I loved how bolted on had smile was for Tet O'Brien.
It was just big smiles, everyone's happy love being with Frigid. I get into I accidentally interrupted her and she calls me out, still smiling. Like Kyle could have dipped into the worst story you would have ever seen and come back to the panel, tedor Brian would still be smiling.
But to the point, like I long ago, he gave up on.
The idea of politicians actually trying to do their best for the general public. So that's a dream that long died. If they all just want to be you know, these messy drama queens that live for gossip and high politics like this, I'm all for it. It's more entertaining, Like what else are we going to do? We follow the fund in the media where natural sticky bakers, Prime Minister Albinezy having productive talks with the Singapore and PM on
the way back to Australia. Important bit dull tedtor Brian Canceling an interview with Minutes to Spare.
That's interesting. I want to see that story.
Yeah, there's another element to this as well, with the leaks, and there's letters and text messages that are flying and if you watch that, and I spoke about the tension in the read there for a little bit about being able to feel that tension. These people do not like each other right now, and I'm really struggling to see how they're going to be able to get over that hurdle of just even being able to be polite. When you've got media teams that are just leaking text messages, alerts.
It doesn't play for constructive media interviews.
No, because the media now has a narrative which is correct that they do not like it's true, and it's frosty in there, and you just think, like if you were a member of the Liberal and National head on Joe's twenty nineteen, you'll lose because people were just hating each other, like openly Scott Morrison getting called out in the Senate himself by Liberal senators this.
One as well.
You know, you get the leagues out, like people felt sidelined in the campaign, people weren' getting briefed on their own ministerial portfolios. People felt that couldn't go on media. So you go, that's two losses in a row, partly caused by the fact that we are publicly not getting along and also privately not along. So within it two weeks that blowing up your bag not getting along, you're just constantly getting in your own way.
It's just and while they're doing this, they're not acting as an opposition and then that's where Australians suffer. And I think journos as well. I mean, these people are I said maybe last week or the week before that it was a dying party or I stand by that. I think effectively, they're incapacitated. They can't do anything. Three to six years minimum, cannot do a thing. The media's
focus is essentially on an impotent political movement. They can't do anything when you've got a very powerful, very powerful prime minister with a sweeping mandate to do all sorts of things. Have made very bold promises on cost of living, bold promises on how many houses would be built on energy prices, and I feel like our colleagues, we're not looking in the right area. We're looking at this theater and it's wholly irrelevant, but like, at.
The same time, it's what the public wants. Like publics just like hearing about the gossipy drama stuff, and.
The opposition did it to themselves.
Did it to themselves soorry to the point where you said that there's not much they can do. There is like labor had a huge mandate. The last time they could have done anything they want. They couldn't get the voice across. And that wasn't because of you know, politicking, that was just because the opposition united behind no you think like super tacks, right, we're all talking about that at Sky News. People aren't talking about that on the street.
That could be the next thing that, through sheer will of public power, labor.
Has to get their hands off because it becomes toxic.
But it's not because the Liberals and Nationals are too busy fighting each other, right and then be united, making themselves not the story and allowing the story to go back to what the government wants to do.
Yeah, I agree, Well we'll follow it closely. But now to the ABC and its former chair Ida Butchros, who has racked up a three thousand, six hundred dollars bill for luxury car travel in just twelve months. The Australian broke the story and then followed it up to reveal that the Media Union was outraged and what a statement they released. The board must stop disrespecting the public and
ABC staff by treating the broadcaster as its plaything. Now, James, this is a really interesting story because at the ABC there's internal policies to not be wasteful over travel, and luxury traveler is one of those things that's an absolute no no. It's beyond public expectations that people would use funds that way. The chair isn't bound by that. So Ida Butcher's her argument, and it's true. She can do it. Yeah, should she though, is another question?
Well, that's the thing, so maybe in the letter of the law, Yeah, she's not ABC stuff. I know that's what she refers to in that article. But from a public perspective, when the public are paying you two hundred thousand dollars a year to run the ABC, you are, in a sense and employee of the ABC responsible to us. And I just go, like, the problem with this is every issue we have with the ABC comes back down to two things. Either one, they're way too biased or
to they're wasting our money. Now, if that's the culture that permeates at the top of just yeah, but you know all these rises that we're getting instead of Uber, instead of me driving myself, If that's the culture at the top, how do you then go? Okay, rank and file, you guys need to stop wasting money. The rank and file should rightly go you first, and the threats become so hollow from the top to the bottom when that's happening. And then the second one, you guys need to rain
in the bias. Well, if you're not grounding yourselves in glory at the top, why should we ground ourselves in glory at the bottom, Like what why bother us changing if you're not going to change.
So yeah, and the media union elements interesting as well because they're frosty ever since the Antoinette Latoof matter, and I actually agree that what they did to Antoinette Latoof they shouldn't have done. I don't think she should have been hired, but watching that defamation case, the reasons that they gave for dismissing her were absolutely outrageous and that no body should, no statutory body should operating like that.
The union there is a grudge and the Australian's article kind of hinted at that that there is this tension. I mean that is a nightmare situation for the ABC, where normally the union would probably be a little bit more sympathetic towards the ABC and journalists and attacks from the outside. Now they're the ones who are pushing it forward.
Well because they've got the natural enemy, Like they're not pulling the rows in the same direction when you talk about the ABC top and bottom, So why would you try and change anything you're doing if the board is saying that you need a rule in line, if they're not pulling themselves in line.
Yeah, agree.
Now, let's check in with the Guardian to see how it is holding the new Labor government to account at.
Tax targeting grandma's attacks, robbing your kids of inheritance, attacks that will force hard working Aussies to sell their farm. So with all of these headlines, this proposed change to the superannuation tax must be a massive disastrous deal, right, Well not really. Here's what's actually going on. So in Australia we store our retirement money in super funds which
invest that money and help it grow over time. Now, the amount you earn from that investment is taxed each year, but at a way discountered rate compared to most regular income tax, just fifteen percent, and this discount overwhelmingly benefits wealthy people.
Now, James, I think the Guardian is going to struggle under this new government from a readership point of view, because it pitches itself and if you look to down the bottom where they beg for donations, they're always saying we hold power to account and you know, wear an independent voice and we don't have billionaire owners, and it's all very kind of lofty, you know, conjecture about how morally superior they are to every other journalist in the country.
Then they go and produce videos that are basically propaganda clips about how good a powerful government's new policy is at taking money which is unrealized gains, and it's it is this kind of explain a trying to convince young people of this class warfare between these rich elites who are taking You're poor and they're rich, and all labor is doing is just trying to take a little bit of that money and give it back. It's just so nauseating it is.
And to be like, you know, they're asking for donations.
I'm sure after that beautiful piece of product of propaganda, I'm sure Jim Jalmons is going to be kicking in a couple hundred bucks.
To it had forty one likes. I'm probably the only one that watched it to.
Be fine, nor two people because I also watched it.
And if you, if you through sheer tyranny of will get to the end of that video. She does admit that twenty two year olds on average ages will be affected, but how is that not the main story? Like, twenty two year olds on average wages are your audience when you make videos.
Like she did it as a qualifier at the end.
Yeah exactly, but like that's your audience.
Like if you go like, okay, I need to spin my sweater around three point sixty to make people watch a video about economics, why didn't you start off with Hey, you know you might be told that this is just going after millionaire grandparents, but it's actually going to affect you down the line to pay attention.
This is your money.
And then the other point, if I can make a broader societal point here, what happens to aspiration? What happens like this said, you know, unrealized capital gang stacks.
Ah, that's just millionaires that will never affect me. Like why don't you believe that you could be a millionaire one day?
Why don't you believe that anything that happens to the top ten percent could one day happen to you? Like why why do people sell themselves short like that?
Yeah, James Bolt, thank you so much for your thoughts. Really appreciate it. Quick break, But when we return, we'll discuss the US media. Welcome back to Stars and Gripes, where we expose the activists masquerading as journalists. And there is a lot of that this week, and much of its centers around the issue of dozens of white farmers in South Africa being slaughtered every year.
Just put this on. It's right behind you.
Yeah you we don't care to.
I wonder you are see what your son it is? Well, I can do that. Look, here's burial site all over the place. You're all these are all white farmers that are being buried. Well, that was US President Donald Trump confronting the President of South Africa, Cyril Ramafosa, with concerns about the sheer number of white farmers being massacred every year. Now, I do want to make the point that I do not think that genocide is accurate here. That work has
specific connotations and needs to meet a high threshold. And just because people on the left want to water down the meaning of words to as their political goals, it does not mean that conservatives should fall into the same trap. Having said that, whether or not these killings meet the
definition of genocide is not really the point. The point is that a group of people which shared racial backgrounds are being killed in large numbers, and some journalists in the media are trying to either justify this horror or insist it simply isn't happening. And that is a shock to us here in Australia because this issue has mainstream acceptance. We have taken in farmers fleeing horror, we have reported on their stories, and we know these people exist. You know what.
I'm so grateful that you know, finally this is being heard and that you know, President Trump has brought it up, because when we moved to Australia four and a half years ago, you know, it felt like nobody was listening. So it really is. I'm thrilled that it is coming art into the open and that the world is now going to see what's really happening in South Africa.
Well, joining me on the desk is Gabriella Power, the host of Power Hour, one of Sky's most watch shows. Jack, thank you for having me, Well, thanks for joining us on the desk. Now, this issue of white farmers, and I think Donald Trump he does this thing where he kind of he makes mistakes or he maybe over exaggerates or over states a position, which then allows the media to sweep the whole issue away. And that's what he does.
But I think as journalists we should be able to still look at the issue acknowledge that maybe there was an error in how something was stated, and the clip we just played there of this woman and Kieran Gilbert did that interview this week, and we've spoken to her
many times on Sky News. These people exist, and I'm really uncomfortable with this push by some journalists in the media to either downplay the stories or turn them into statistical anomalies, to suggest that the number of them is so statistically irrelevant that it should not even be discussed, that there shouldn't be any legitimate conversation around it. I think it's a very disturbing trend. What are you seeing?
Yeah, absolutely, I completely agree with you.
Look, many people disagree with Donald Trump's approach here, and I'm not here to say that.
His approach is perfect.
But watching that exchange at the White House, it really shows you why Donald Trump was elected, why so many people support him, because he's not afraid to stand up to other world leaders. While South Africa's president has gone to the White House to talk about trade at the same time that America is taking in refugees from South Africa who were fleeing racial violence, Donald Trump is.
Going to raise the issue with the president.
Now, this is part of Donald Trump's transparency agenda. He's not afraid to have these conversations while the cameras are rolling. And as you point out that here in Australia, we're very aware of the issues of what is unfolding in South Africa.
We've had that interview, we've.
Given them Asylo absolutely and the reality is that hundreds of farmers have been attacks, There's been dozens of murders in South Africa. And right now America is taking in fifty nine or last week, I think it was fifty nine refugees from South Africa, and the left wing media in America had an absolute freak out about it. There was one commentator on CNN completely minimizing the issue, saying, oh, it's only a couple of people being murdered, as if
that is somehow okay. And so Donald Trump is up against the leftist media every day in America where they're horrified that America is taking in refugees from South Africa. And so by Donald Trump's standing up to South Africa's president at the White House, he's also coming.
There with the receipts.
He's there showing the footage of leaders calling for racial violence in South Africa. There's a vision of white crosses being marked to mark and honor every white farmer that has been killed in South Africa. And so, as we heard from that interview that was played on Kieran Gilbert's show that so many people watching that exchange in the White House were so grateful for President Trump for really
highlighting the issue. And although his approach may be unpredictable, maybe bold, it's unconvinced lighting as well.
And then I think that some of the fact checks are focusing on splitting hairs and it's not the substance of what the message is. When you've got a government which is pressuring white farmers to sell a law was passed in January that gives them the power to take it without compensation, you can't have that situation politically without there being an underbelly of resentment. And I understand why there is resentment because of apartheid, but that doesn't mean
that this reality isn't happening anyway. Let's move on, because we'll be Goldberg took on the issue of white farmers, and she also got stuck on this word genocide and used it as scapegoat to dismiss the entire reality of the situation and watch how her brain dead panel chuckles and smirks while discussing such a serious issue.
So South African President Rob Posa paid a visit to the White.
House yesterday, which turned into.
A surprise presentation on conspiracy theories.
Yeah, I don't know. It's something that's really uncomfortable to me. When there are dozens of people that are murdered, there is that underbelly of anti white resentment. I don't think it meets the threshold of genocide, and I think that it was a mistake for Trump to say that. But they're chuckling and laughing at that, and it is a serious situation, and it's quite obvious to me that the government wants these farmers to see the land. There is
pressure behind that. The community knows that the community would be seeing that, listening to that, and they're sitting there, they're.
Laughing at a conspiracy theory. You know, that's absolutely absurd to say that white farmers are not being murdered.
That that's a conspiracy theory. And it's not just the view.
Other media outlets, I should say, covering the exchange in the White House have all almost had the same headlines. Trump ambushes this South Africa's president amid false claims of racism. These aren't false claims of racism. People are being murdered, and you've got people like Whoopi Goldberg on the View claiming that it's conspiracy theories. Again, to your point, genocide's not the right term, but it's still a very real issue.
And for Whoopie Goldberg should really go back and actually look at the.
Statistics if she wants to.
You know, if you look at the side rate in South Africa, it's forty five per hundred thousand. The homicide rate in South Africa for white farmers is one hundred and nine per one hundred thousand. Now, of course, noting that white farmers do make up a small percentage of the population, but the point is that this group is vulnerable and they are being targeted, and that is why America is now taking in fifty nine refugees from South Africa.
And so for this issue to be aired.
On the View with really no sympathy for what is going on, I think it's just they're almost using it as another way of just of slamming Trump for everything. They want to play into this narrative that Trump is a big bad bully that Trump is awful.
Well, the left loves nuance until it's uncomfortable, until there's maybe more than the surface level story to discuss, and then all of a sudden, nuance goes out the window, and they love that broad brush to say conspiracy. We know time and time again the conspiracies are often proven
proven true. When some of these people are pushing that word anyway, staying on this issue again, reporters spent their energy quibbling and fact checking the semantics of statements, and it led to a heated exchange between one woman and Press Secretary Caroline Leavitt. Good to see you.
Get thanks for ticular question.
Sure, the President showed a video that he says showed more than a thousand burial sides of Africans, and he said.
We're murdered.
We know that that's not true and that the video wasn't doing that. So I wonder why did the President choose to show that it's not true the video was showing a burial site. It's unsubstantiated that that's the case.
No, it's it is true that that video showed the crosses. That represents what the President claimed. The video showed images of crosses in South Africa about white farmers who have been killed and politically persecuted because of the color of their skin.
President, and those crosses.
Aren't representing their lives. Those crosses are representing their lives and the fact that they are now dead and their government did nothing about it.
Are you disputing that there's no fact that.
The video showed what the President claimed it showed because it did not show that. But even more, what I'm asking is.
Who what they did show?
That the white cross is representing people who have perished because of racial persevery, the videos that the President shows and what protocols are in praise when there's unsubstantiated information being put out for the world, And give me what's unsubstantiated about the video. The video shows crosses that represent the dead bodies of people who are racially persecuted by their government.
In fact, the.
Associated Press, of all places, has a picture of that very monument, and the caption from the Associated Press is each cross marks a white farmer who has been killed in a farm murder.
So it is again Donald Trump has opened himself up to these kind of fact checks, and I do think they're wholly irrelevant. Is it a burial side or is it a symbolic site to represent It's not really wholly relevant. But he misspoke or whether intentionally or not, whether he understands the difference, and it does leave him vulnerable in moments likely and.
He does do that.
We know that Donald Trump exaggerates, he gets a few things wrong, but it is it's missing the point.
But journalists coming.
Into the room, they're really focusing on that because they want to come out with a story to say that Donald Trump is a liar, that Donald Trump is the word. Really, Caroline Levett is just so brilliant at highlighting exactly what
Donald Trump was pointing out. Really that the facts are as, that these white crosses were there to mark and honor the white farmers that have been killed and just back on the view Woopie Goldberg even seemed to suggest that the South African president wouldn't want to come back and continue meeting with Donald Trump in the future, which is absolutely outrageous. When South Africa depends on America for trade.
America is South Africa's second largest trading partner. I think the South African president can handle a heated exchange with the President, and so I think, you know, world knit leaders are on notice a bit with Donald Trump. They know they have to be prepared that anything can happen in these sorts of meetings. But Donald Trump is going to call out what he thinks is unfair, whether it's happening in America or whether it's happening in other countries.
But you know, with Caroline Lebott being so brilliant and so articulate at really a driving home what is the most important message and what journalists should really be focused on. It's interesting because that it really speaks, I think to how why Americans seem to have lost a lot of trust in the media when there are journalists going into the White House, into the over offers and that, oh the press briefing room, I should say, and they're just so desperate to try and get on Donald Trump.
We've definitely got a lot of work to build that trust back. But Gabrielle Power, thank you so much for joining us. We'll be back shortly and stick around because when we return, we talk all things ABC with media watchdog columnist Jared Henderson. Welcome back. Joining me now as he does each and every week, is Sky News Australia's Media watchdog columnist Jared Henderson, Jared, thank you so much for joining us now this grab that we've got here from this bridge of Brennan into me, I could not
believe this. So when you've highlighted this to me, let's have a listen.
But real sweep from there's going to be more and more and more of it.
Lukeris Bender speaking of against it, I think she's been quite strong.
So perhaps the influence of the Independence will be strong on these issues, but they certainly want broad scale financial and touching it wrong.
Jared Bridgard Brennan thinks a Legras spender has been quite strong. That shows me that's so unlike the ABC. That's sort of a plug.
Give me a plug to the teals. Whoever would have thought so? But you know, when parliament resumes in July late July, she'd have one seat out of one hundred and fifty and bridgerd Brittan saying watch her. I mean the Tales weren't important in the last parliament, not in the reps. They're not in the Senate. They weren't important in the Reps because they never got into minority government and this time Labour's got a majority of over forty.
So the idea that Prime Minister Albanese is going to be looking around to the tills to hear what they want to say on tax or super is just ludicrous. Bridget Brennan couldn't help herself. She had to sort of give them a plug somehow, so she managed to get it in, which is quite an achievement really.
Yeah. And I mean, you know, the ABC is always talking about diversity targets, etc. And I think to a degree that's a noble pursuit, but there's not much diversity of opinion there and you get the same people, the same voices. They're all center left progressive voices.
It's a lack of viewpoint diversity. They've got all these other diversities, they're replete with them, but viewpoint diversity is the one issue that the new chairman, Kim Williams never addresses, has not addressed. He's addressed other issues, but not that the new managing director hasn't said much at all yet. But I mean it's the case where the staff run the joint and they're all on the left basically, and if they're not, they don't tell anyone.
Well, Another person who meets that is Ben Hart, who's a journalist. Yes, and we've got a very interesting grab about Joe Biden where he's kind of made some realizations. Let's have a listen.
And I think you've had collectively from both side of the politics, Democrats and Republicans.
Going wait a minute.
And then you've had even a Democrat advisor, one who was a senior advisor during COVID, who's also on a collegist saying, oh, yeah, he had it for seven years. So I think it's read the whole conversation has really turned and that there's a really serious conversation in America.
Did he have it from the start? You know? And this is not just the Fox News cranks.
This is like across the putt in the spectrum, really serious questions about you know, what looks like conspiracy.
So Ben Hart, he's a former journalist from the age and he runs his own agency. Now you can see how some of these people think about ideas. They don't consider something on first principles or on the merit of evidence. For example, Joe Biden, just looking at him and listening to him, it was quite obvious he was cognitively impaired. He needs the Democrats and he needs both sides to
admit it, otherwise it doesn't exist. And a few quips in there about Fox News and cranks, etc. What do you make of this?
But he goes to Jack Taper. But at the time DEPSI and then journalist, he denied it. He's now apologized for denying it. But it's believing what you want to believe. They journalists on the left didn't want to believe that Biden had met serious medical problems. Any who watched Sky News in Australia or Fox News in the United States knew it because they saw the clippings. But if you watch the ABC, you wouldn't know it because they didn't
play the clippings. And then so what he says is, well, you know, we don't rely on Fox News or how he describes Fox News as as cranks. But if he listened to the cranks, he'd be better informed than listening to his mates.
Yeah. I'd rather be a crank if it means I'm correct. Moving on though, We've got a quick grab from Sally Sarah. Let's have to listen and Nikore, Welcome to Radio National Breakfast.
Good morning, Good morning, Australia, and I'm very happy to report we had a similar result to what you had.
We have a rejection of the far right in Romania and what do you make of these results? Yeah. So one of the things makes me actually quite angry about this is, and I spoke earlier on the show, I think Donald trum was very wrong to use the word genocide to discuss what's happening in South Africa doesn't meet the threshold. Far right has very specific connotations. It's people that think that the disabled should be culled. It's this
racial superiority viewpoint. It's not somebody that maybe is uncomfortable with slightly high levels of immigration, and they are perverting that concept to associate a twenty body who's center right. I think it's I think it's reprehensible, but.
It is in particularly as a certain connotation in Central Europe as well, because of the history of that part of the world. But George Simon, I mean, he wants he wants to invade Moldova, he wants to take it over for Romania, he wants to invade parts of Ukraine. So we're going to say that's far right, then Peter Dutton should be talking about invading New Zealand or part
of Papua New Guinea. I mean, these comments are just ludicrous and I can understand why a Romanian member of the European Parliament who's on the left might say this, But Sally Sarah has a right to correct it or to challenge it.
Well, she's an obligation.
Well an obligation, yeah, I agree with that, but she doesn't. So people think, oh, well, I mean this extremist in Romania is just like Peter Dutton. Well that's just wayfully fault. If you look at the last election, there wasn't a great deal between the parties and policy in any rate. I mean, there was no far right candidate unless you want to believe what you want to believe, which a Cili Sara does, which is to somehow equate Peter Dutton with.
The far right.
But he's nothing like the far right.
It should be offensive to anybody that knows anything about what historical far right parties have done and where that word needs to be reserved. Jared Henderson, thank you so much for your inside Anarchy analysis. As always. Now that's all the time that we have for this evening, But up next is Newsnight,