This is the Media Show with Jack outing Hello and welcome to the Media Show. I'm Jack Houghton, and we have a packed show tonight dissecting Donald Trump's war with NPR newsrooms, and we sit down with journalist Chang Lay to hear about the three years she spent in a Chinese prison. But first, the ABC has some major problems to address this week. There has been blunder after blunder, followed by self indulgent productions, the spreading of intentional misinformation
and just pure activism. And we'll get through it all, but I have to lead the show with this absolute shocker.
I think the other thing that's probably really important to regional communities is that they have a local member who's there when their electorate is, for example, flooding. So I went through this earlier today. I went and checked. So on Wednesday afternoon, there was a sixty three year old man in Moto that's near Tyree, that's in Allison Penfold's seat the National He died on Thursday morning. The body was recovered of a thirty year old Amanu thirties in
Rosewood that's in her seat as well. On Thursday afternoon, that's when we had the press conference from the Nationals in the Hall. Just to go over that timeline. A sixty year old woman died in her car near Coffs Harbor in this flood. That's in pact Conahan's seat of Kauper.
I think the.
Important thing is that when you're in our position, it's also still your job to be a local member and represent your communities, to be there for them.
That was ABC reporter Claudia Long, falsely alleging that Conservative MPs had abandoned their flood ravage communities. She also rattled off the details of these poor people who died in the floods, turning their stories and the pain of their families into ammunition for a cheap swipe of politicians she clearly dislikes. So was the allegation true? Not a word.
It's pretty grim when the ABC or anyone's playing politics with a flood and of course, in your case, the deaths of residents.
Yeah. Look, I can't tell you how hurtful the comment was. I was actually had been in Wingham morning talking to businesses that have been flood affected, and I had intended to continue on to some houses. I got a phone call to hear that this journalist I've never met her.
In fact, I've never heard of us until yesterday, had not even bothered to call me before making these sorts of comments, while you know I've been hard at work and as his pat in the electorate, we live here, we know people affected.
Didn't even pick up the phone to check, and how did the ABC respond well? In typical fashion, the communications team put out a vague statement apologizing, but you wouldn't believe the terminology they used to distance their reporter from the blame. On the Insiders episode broadcast on the twenty fifth of May, and EBC panelists made comments inferring the two Nationals MPs Allison Penfold and Pat Conahan, were not in their electorates during the recent New South Wales floods now.
Notice how they don't say an ABC journalist made the allegation. Insiders is a show with panelists from all over the media. A panelist could be from nine from seven or even News Corp. It isn't an accident, it is an intentional use of language to shield their reporter from scrutiny. Joining me now to discuss is Sky News contributor Louise Robertson Managing editor at The Australian, Darren Davidson. Louise, let's start with you. Thanks for joining us here on the panel.
An absolute shocker, And we were talking before the show about the reaction from Alison and followed the National MP that had this allegation against us. Very heartbreaking that she had to endure that kind of attack on her and her character by this reporter, and then this reporter hasn't really said anything about it since no.
I think this is an abject failure on so many levels, Jack, I mean, I really feel for Alis and Penfold the MP, because now she's had a week where she's had to justify what the ABC did or try and explain it away to locals when all she wants to really focus on is rebuilding her community. And she was not Mia. There's photographs of her on social media with muddle over it because she's literally been in the thick of it.
She was caught in the floods herself. She couldn't get down to see the daughter of a man who died in the floods. So you know the fact that her interview with Peter where she said it was heartbreaking. I totally sympathize with her for that and the way the ABC has tried to paper over this by not addressing the issue and not issuing a proper you know, I would say a proper apology for their behavior and the behavior of the reporter just shows it's another basic standards
fail by them. Our ABC, taxpayer funded ABC, any other government department wouldn't get away with this.
It's a really good point, Darren. Other statutory bodies that have these kind of responsibilities that the taxpayers fund, there would be an outcome. And I think that the public does need to know is being done about this, what kind of fact checking happens before these very severe allegations are made. And I would like to see the reporter go on to insiders and to do a correction, and that is what they would and Media Watch would expect anyone else to do in a situation like this.
Yeah, absolutely, Jack that I'd expect the same of the Australian as well, and often do make those kind of demands. I mean, Alison Penfold rightly, rightly feels very angry and furious about this, and I don't really blame her, you know, to accuse an elected official of abandoning her community during a tragedy like this. It's quite a serious allegation and
it's just a basic failure of reporting. And to then have the ab spinners in their pr communications department claim that the reporter was a panelist, and to try and fudge it like that, I think just doubled just down on the mistake, and it makes it makes it even worse. It's really disingenuous and ultimately just a rose trust in the ABC's journalism between them and their shows and their reporting and their audience and the public, which is not a good thing for them and not a good thing
for everybody more generally. You're just a roads trust in journalism.
More generally, I think, yeah, Well, plenty more blunders at the ABC to get through, though, because it has been an absolute shocker for news director Justin Stevens, who, in my opinion, is too incompetent to run a newsroom. The network was relentlessly mocked when it posted a video of Karmala Harris on the Gold Coast, which turned out to not be Karmala Harris. Now, let's bring the panel back in Louise. This one's on the more harmless side of it.
But it goes back to standards that this woman had I think one identity characteristic in common with Karmala Harris, and they've lasily just published that. Yeah, massive problem and.
It stayed up for what twenty five minutes on Instagram I think, until someone will Actually.
The comments were very fun.
Yeah, that's right, this poor woman being slandered saying she was Kamala Harris, the sort of high priestess of word salad.
In fact, no one wants to be compared, but in fact she was.
I believe it the Balmel Pavilion a few days earlier, legitimately with the whole Secret Service caval cat, which is a bit of a giveaway that a former United States VP is actually in town. But again, yeah, it speaks to the sort of lack of rigorous fact checking in the fact that nobody looked at that photo and went, hang on, this is a woman carrying a bag with the lanyard may not be.
Really doesn't look at it.
No, let's put their pictures side by side.
Would No, it's not actually Darren, let's bring you in. What do you make of this mistake?
It might seem like a silly mistake, but you know, I think it reflects a deeper issue, which is kind of a lack of editorial care, which we're kind of seeing consistently here as a pattern. And it might be a small mistake, but accuracy matters even on the really small things. It just shows how seriously an insm takes its responsibility to report the facts. And again, you know, no apology, just a lack of consequences at the ABC. And again that seems to be a pattern that we
keep seeing time and time again. And you know, you don't see the same thing I think at the commercial media outlets. If we make a mistake, and from time to time we do, we do our best to correct it quickly and inform the audience about that. And you know ours are pretty good at calling that out and making sure that everybody knows about it. And that's fair enough, But it doesn't seem to be the case at the ABC.
There are no consequences when it makes these mistakes wherever they're big ones or small ones.
Yeah, well said. But now to the third egregious error by the ABC recently, which Chris Kenny actually picked a part in his show, which was the blatantly false assertion that fourteen thousand babies in Gaza were dying from starvation, a.
Worst case scenario of what malnutrition not deaths could happen to children if more food is not supplied or the war is not ended over a year, and that is reported as fourteen thousand babies being about to die in forty eight hours. It just made no sense at all, Yet the claim ran globally, it was widely reported as fact. Here in Australia, journalists, media organizations, bloggers, activists and the United Nations ought to be condemned. They ought to be disgusted by their own gullibility.
Well another apology by the ABC, but who even reads those apart from us Luise, it's basically justselves going through them. The situation in Gaza is obviously horrific and there's these massive humanitarian issues. I don't think it helps either side to either embellish the numbers, fabricate the numbers, and to walk away with a false depiction of what the reality is. That's right, and this assertion that there's fourteen thousand, that
is a big number. And as Chris Kenny points out, anyone who's reasonable, a reasonable objective operator covering this conflict should look at that and say, okay, how could you possibly get that number? And where alleging fourteen thousand babies are on the brink of death, there are moments away from dying. Just there's no common sense at all going on at the ABC, or even worse, it's activism.
Well that's the thing. So it's a very emotionally charged statistic, isn't it. I mean, who could not fail to be moved by the fact that that many babies would die
in what forty eight hours? This part of them fact doesn't actually make sense physically, but you know, again it's about outrage, not informing, and there's no clarification, no proper clarification, any sort of sorry or oops type thing is sort of shoved into that website broom covered, I would call it, which perhaps we are the only people are actually looking
at it. I don't think the ABC high management or indeed ABC viewers on a regular basis are probably looking at and thinking, hmm, they're meant to be factual and accurate. Something's gone very wrong here.
Yeah, and where has it come from? I mean, Darren, it's basically is it just the Hamas Health Ministry, which is you know, it gets a lot of quoting from these figures and there's no way to really check them. We know that there is issues with information coming out out of this conflict. To me, it is very problematic when you have a very expensive national broadcaster that is putting this kind of misinformation out there and taking a very long time to correct the record, a very long time.
It's not a situation where this is the next day after Chris Kenny pointed it out, it's several days down the line. They always try and kind of do everything they can to avoid apologizing. They had no choice in this situation.
Yeah. Look, I mean, as Louis said, it's a very sensitive story and errors like this only inflame the situation even even further. And as you've pointed out as well, Jack, I mean, there's there's no serious data to back up that number, and that source should be questioned. But unfortunately that source that you've mentioned there gets a lot of air time and and it gets credibility that it doesn't deserve.
Chris Mitchell and the Australian in the media section has been really good on this one, just pointing out that journalist should be you know, should question that source a lot. In a more rigorous way than they have been and just to report what they say unchecked is a seriously
flawed approach to journalism. Look, no question of the situation out there is dire, but you know the Australian fact checked it, the Wall Street Journal fact checked it, and as I said, it's not supported by any serious data. And and you know, even an apology after that doesn't
really make a lot of difference. It's it just undermines the credibility of the ABC's coverage of international affairs, which, as you've reported the show again, you know this is a pattern that we've seen time and time again.
Well, as you can see, there are so many errors going to air on the ABC that we don't even have time enough time on this show to dissect them all. It is that bad and you pay for this. Also, have you ever noticed that every error always seems to adversely impact only one side of politics. We don't seem to get many corrections about staff lodging false accusations against the Teals. The false allegations only ever seem to be
directed at Conservatives or Israel. Something to think about. So Justin Stevens, who is responsible for all of this, you pay him five hundred and fifty six thousand dollars a year to run this news room and in return, the ABC producers hard hitting content like this is sport to a toy out of different taxes. How I, Dana, how would you describe Laura Tingle?
Smart?
Tough, dedicated, hard working, relentless, won't take any crap from anybody.
Laura is both wonderful and terrifying, formidable, formidable and formidable.
Well what do we make of that? I mean, essentially, you've got Laura Tingle there featuring in a news package on seven thirty about how great Laura Tingle is and how amazing the ABC is. It's just self indulgent at a time where it's just been completely just ever ridden content flowing out everywhere, and they just they love themselves so much it's nauseating.
I felt like I was watching the Academy Walls or something. Maybe the log is that's what you expect, that sort of you know, self indulgent content to be on those sort of a ward show, but not on a news program which we're paying for.
As you say, yeah, I agree, and quickly. This one isn't as much an error as it is blatant challenge propaganda.
The approval of Woodside's Northwest Shelf will mean that floods are going to be worse, that fires are going to be worse, that droughts will be more intense.
The Federal government has signed off on an extension of Australia's largest oil and gas project until twenty seventy.
Australia cannot keep approving big climate bombs.
A climate bomb? How very scientific? The ABC did not challenge a word of Sarah Hanson Young's absurd statements, and by doing this the journalist is elevating unscientific gets you gibberish and making viewers think that every word is true. Now, climate science is extremely complex and for a sorry can I redo this? It's two stumbles? Ah, okay, just whenever
climate bomb? How very scientific? The ABC did not challenge a word of Sarah Hanson Young's absurd statements, and by doing this the journalist is elevating unscientific gibberish and making viewers think that every word is true. Climate science is extremely complex and forecasting is linked to macro analysis of
emissions not hindered by geographical restrictions. Hans and Young is not someone who understands this, and her rhetoric about a single gas operation making floods or bushfires worse is utterly false and mathematically impossible. And anyone using the phrase climate bomb is not a serious person. But the ABC loved the grab so much it ran it right at the start of that package, not a word of pushback and not a shred of science. Well, Darren, let's go to you.
I mean, the ABC, I do thing has got a problem with rhetoric and hyperbole around the climate change issue, but to climate bomb, I mean, does it get any more petulant than that?
Yeah, theater and I think by you know, as you said,
running it so prominently, that only endorses it. And look, the approach we take at the Australian is these are really complex issues and you know, to be sort of just focusing on the headline and not getting into the complexity of the issue only misinforms the public and that's not a good thing, I think, you know, and the result from that is kind of fear and misunderstanding, misinformation, not actually really understanding what is a complex scientific issue.
And yeah, that's it's it's not great. Unfortunately, as I said earlier, there's this continuing pattern only undermines the ABC. You know the trust, the trust that the public have in the ABC's.
Journalism, well, said Darren Davidson. Louise Roberts, thank you so much for joining me today a quick break, but when we return, we sit down with journalists Chang Lei, who shares details of the three years that she spent trapped in a Chinese prison. She was a rising star at the China Global Television Network until one day she disappeared without a trace. Australian Chinese journalist Chang li was working her dream job in Beijing in viewing business giants such
as Bill Gates and athletes like David Beckham. But one day she breached an embargo on a government press release by just seven minutes and everything changed. She was detained by secret police for one hundred and fifty four days in the most harrowing conditions imaginable. Her fans just suddenly noticed she was gone from their screens. CGTN deleted all trace of her from their website. The face of their newsroom was deleted overnight, but despite their best efforts, she
was not forgotten. Her story is one of resilience and the extremes of government overreach, and she has bravely relived this in a documentary for Sky News and her upcoming book, Chang Lee, a Memoir of Freedom. And we are very very fortunate to be joined by Lay on the Desk tonight to discuss her book and of course a documentary which we were able to watch together last night and it is a must watch situation, Jack, and thank you
for joining us. Now you've written in your book something that I think is really interesting somebody that has gone through this situation, you still clearly have a very deep love for China, and you describe yourself as a cultural schizophrenic, kind of dancing between Chinese culture and Australian culturelessly, seamlessly. Tell me a bit more about that.
I think because I came at this critical age of ten, I had absorbed a lot of what it meant to be Chinese and then picked up wonderful things that come with being Australian. And it's just been wonderful to share the best of Australia with Chinese people and vice versa.
And I thought I was doing that in my job, increasing understanding, bridging the the gap, and then it turned out that that was my sin because I was communicating too much, sharing too much, And now I'm a bit wary of things like national borders and getting too patriotic without seeing the downsides.
The warning sides that come along with it. And I do want to talk about the arrest and this phrase that you know what it tricked me? I think when I first heard the phrase house arrest, because I was thinking, well, she'd be in a unit, potentially her own unit, and cole bracelets and ankle bracelets, should be able to go shopping.
That's not at all what it was. It was a situation where you were guarded in person by two people staring at you twenty four hours a day, unable to literally move for upper of thirteen hours without getting permission to even scratch your face. What was that like?
So, to give an example, to go to the toilet, I would be sandwich between the two guards. I would have to say request permission to go to the toilet. That would say permission granted. I would stand up and then immediately one guard backs her way towards the toilet. One follows me, and I am staring at the guard's shoes as I shuffle towards the toilet. I take off
my pants in front of them. I do my business in front of them, and they stand there watching, and then we shuffle back and do that for sleeping, for showering, for every time I thought about my kids, I was in floods of tears, and they watched that. And if I was so tired because I couldn't sleep at night, I close my eyes for a few seconds. Open your eyes, and if I had my arm inside the covers, they
would wake me. Take your arms out. I would be woken at six thirty each morning, and everything was done at a certain time. I didn't see anyone else. I couldn't talk to the guards, but later on as I got to know them, and I didn't make trouble for them because I felt sorry for what they had to do.
Sure for their four hour shifts to watch me, like imagine the boredom and also the fatigue, even though they're taking turns standing and sitting, but still the nothingness of it, and they had to wear masks while I didn't, And.
Or for what what was?
How was I going to bust out of this situation with these thick steel doors electronically closed, and monitors and secret police and as in special police and guard dogs.
They gave me too much credit. I'm not Jason Satin. Yes, a lot in the book there's I guess, different different calibers of spying. I guess that they're looking at But to me, it looked like a form of psychological dominating.
Absolutely intimidation.
And the party is wide. Yes, we're watching, We're always watching. And there's one scene in the documentary which took me back where it had the re enacting of you falling asleep and there's this person with a mask just kind of hovering over you.
Yeah, she was always very close to my face.
Six months there. You did that for six months before you were then moved into the group area, which had different dynamics.
That's right, but it was mostly for one psychology. It was mostly better. I think even the Chinese government decided that six months was the maximum that a person could take.
It surely reaches a threshold of torture. It is it is with them having that plausible deniability of well know, we haven't harmed her, we haven't touched her. They've moved so close to you, yes, and it invaded your very consciousness.
Absolutely, and they make you feel you can't go anywhere you don't have any help, You're desperate, and signing confession is your best way out.
How do you stay sane in that situation?
I was lucky that once I started getting embassy visits, I could try to describe how I was feeling, which was I mean, the mental state was definitely worsening for a few months, and the embassy kept lobbying for better conditions, even things like allowing me to use a bit of dental floss or giving me moisturizer, or getting me a support top because bras weren't allowed. All of that, and the opening the top windows for fifteen minutes but the curtains were remaining closed.
All those things add up to it allows I guess to compartmentalize the day and break it up.
And also I was lucky enough to get some books once they discovered that I wasn't a spy and they didn't have much to interrogate me for, but they had to keep me there and didn't want me to go really insane and be harder to manage. So I would get this trip feed of books.
And you moved from this to some more group prison.
Situation freedom paradise, as I'm.
Called that freedom paradise, but reguards there were still things such as you know, signs on the doors, and you mentioned this in the documentary. The ultimate crime was to disparage the party.
That's right. And I said to Ben Fordham on his show that if we had that in Australia, you know, Sky News would very little material to run.
Well, it's the warning signs, right, Yeah, I guess you know. There is a broad problem of political prisoners in China, and something that is very disturbing is your story is just one story. I shudder to think how many people are actually in this state over.
There, especially the Chinese citizens.
Especially Chinese citizens, is they.
Don't have the embassy visits, so they have no voice, they have no contact with their families, and they're kept there for years.
And you're doing a bit of work for Australians abroad as well.
Trying to trying to raise awareness, trying to get political change, and just keep reinforcing the idea that it is not okay to take individuals and use them for the state. But for countries like China and Russia and Iran, I think it's perfectly okay, and even some of its citizens think the state is overriding and it is okay for the small cogs of the wheel sacrificed.
Yeah, it's the loss of individual identity. And I guess when you talk about being schizophrenic culturally and linguished in that, I am not in the values not but from a values point of view, there is such a different cultural upbringing and because you did spend from as you said, ten years old, growing up in Melbourne, you've had that sense of individuality probably instilled in you at such a young age. Absolutely, that is probably something they're trying to stamp out.
Yes, and it takes a very brave Chinese person and a very original thinker to rebel against the years and years of constant brainwashing in doctrination that you cannot be different, you cannot defy the state machine, and all you can do is lie to yourself, go along with it and try to act live a lie basically like all the other people.
When you did finally get out, and I have to say, there was a moment when you were embracing Penny Wong, and I do think that she's obviously she did a lot to get to that level. She did, so you must have a pretty strong bond with her for doing that for you. What was it like to reunite with your children.
Oh, just think of my life before, which was up here and then crashing into this abyss and I just kept falling and then suddenly shooting back into the light, into happiness, warmth. And I used to I used to do this, you know, to replicate some sort of human affection. And I used to think, when I get out, I am going to speak to everyone. I am going to smile to any living creature that I see. I am going to you know, put a piece of grass in my mouth, just to be close to nature because I
was so starved of it. And you know, I can. I still talk to every cab driver that I sit in the back of and really revel in human connection because you don't always get that.
Well, I'm really glad that you're such a resilient person that you were able to get through it with that attitude.
All those Australians helped me come on. I'm deeply, deeply grateful, and it says a lot about who we are that we care for this strange woman that is stuck in China.
Yeah. Yeah, well, Changla, thank you so much for sharing your story here on the desk, So make sure that you watch Changlai's documentary this coming Tuesday, and then the very next day and Wednesday. Her new book, A Memoir of Freedom is also out and you can pre order that already. And Chang Lai, thank you so much.
For joining us.
Thanks deck a quick break. But when we return, inside the NPR funding scandal in the United States, welcome to stars and gripes. And this week there are more activists pretending to be journalists and it has led to a rather tense standoff between the NPR newsroom in the US and Donald Trump.
NPR has filed a First Amendment lawsuit against the Trump administration, alleging the president's efforts to defund them is a violation of the Constitution. Trump has accused MPR and PBS a bias, signing an executive order for the Corporation of Public Broadcasting to stop funding them. PBS says it's preparing to take legal action against the administration as well, but has yet to file a lawsuit.
When journalists think that they are constitutionally entitled to your tax dollars, they are just proving how out of touch they are. A president doesn't need a reason to cut funding from wherever he wants. But when you have a completely captured organization like NPR, which is one hundred percent filled with activist journalists, why wouldn't a president intervene? The last thing tax dollars should ever be used for is activism and politically motivated smears. Feel free to start a
private company and do whatever you want. That's freedom, but the people shouldn't be forced to give you a cent. Now, predictably, NPR is now pretending to be extremely balanced, and in this interview with their CEO Catherine Maha.
The White House and some Republicans in Congress, as you well know, have accused NPR of promoting a liberal bias. Beyond that, the former NPR editor Uri Berliner, he accused the network of having what he called a lack of viewpoint diversity. How do you respond to those critiques?
Well, I, first of.
All, I'll respond by saying, we're a non partisan news organisation. We seek to be able to provide a range of different viewpoints in terms of who we bring on air.
The stories that we tell.
Were buttresses in this effort by the fact that we have two hundred local newsrooms across the country.
Okay, so the CEO is politically neutral. I wonder how she would explain this tweet. Then from twenty twenty, let's bring in Sky and News contributor Kosha Gata Court caught with a Biden hat in twenty twenty, on the very day that America went to cast their vote, advocating for Joe Biden to win the race. It doesn't scream neutrality to me. It certainly doesn't. Jack Wait to be as always. And she was in a hearing on Capitol Hill not too long ago where a lot of her tweets were
put up and she had to explain them. And she's very smart.
She knows what she's doing, and she sort of acknowledged all of them and then tried to say, well, you know, that's my personal opinion. It doesn't affect how I perform as an executive, and you know all those tricks in the book. But I think you're absolutely right. I call this First Amendment convenience. Where they try to use that and levy that to defend against anything, whether it's the sector, the university sector, etc. That the current administration is going after.
It doesn't make sense.
There's nothing in the constitution that mandates tax dollar allocations. But yet we do see this judicial activism where these arguments are getting favorable review from different judges, and everything's running up to the Supreme Court. So I would not be surprised if something along those lines happens here, even though this argument is obviously absurd.
Oh yeah, and this whole notion that the CEO of a very large media organization can literally endorse a candidate but then say, oh, that's my personal profile, although you use that profile to tweet about work, and then all your staff see it, so they all know what the boss likes. Everybody knows what the boss thinks. Surely then that must proliferate through the newsroom.
It absolutely does, and there's all sorts of people who analyzed the stories at NPR DOS or whether it's the ABC here, BBC in the UK. It's not nobody's fooled by it.
We know it.
And I think this is the first time that you're seeing somebody actually push back and talk about defunding them, which I think is a wide open argument available to the right side of politics in every country. But for some reason, nobody wants to really go in and take this issue on by the jugular, but we're seeing it now with this administration.
Yeah, good, take their money, Take every scent of text dollar funds from In my opinion, now the media is running a major campaign to back in Harvard in the funding to speak with Donald Trump, and the argument has similarities to the NPR one that these institutions are somehow entitled to your money. But on MSNBC they let slip what it's really about. Watch the guest grin and speak with glee about the fact that some races are being openly discriminated against when it comes to admissions.
There are no seats left for Americans, and you combine that with the critic of race based admissions. This is about really these institutions, Chris trying to build a student body that reflects not only the diversity of the country, but the diversity of the world, and Trump stoking a particular kind of grievance because people like him, their children can't seem to get into Harvard like they used to. They can't get into the Columbias and the Princetons like
they used to. They're having difficulty getting into the Lehighs and the Williams like they used to. They believe they possess these institutions, and so by virtue of their particular positions of power, they are trying to in some ways capture them.
Once again, how brazen do you have to be to openly admit that on national television now kosher? The reason that some people are not getting in as easily into these universities is because there's well documented open discrimination against certain races, including Asian Americans and of course white Americans.
And the whole point of this funding the speak, the reason why the left is so rile up is because they're asking for accountability on one of these points, and then obviously how many spaces are going to people from foreign countries taxpayers of funding that? To a degree, it's a completely legitimate question, which I cannot believe the level of dishonesty that some journalists are deploying to look at it one hundred percent.
I think a lot of them just can't, honestly and genuinely can't get their arms around the issue because they've been trained for half a century to believe that this is some kind of entitlement for them, and there is a structural injustice, and you know, we need many, many more centuries in the opposite direction, favoritism to one group over another, to write these past sins. That is what they believe, and that's where they speak it so clearly
and openly, as you say, unabashedly. This issue is also very very interesting because similar to the last one, it is this administration willing to fight dirty and to take on institutions that are very politically lopsided, very much into setting up activism and enabling that from their student base, defying the Supreme Court ruling that came down and said they were engaging discriminatory practices with the Asian Americans as you mentioned in white Americans, and they've been kind of
defying that, not covertly but obertly in their practices. And the one mechanism that the federal government has is money, So that's what they're trying to do that you are not no longer necessarily entitled to billions of dollars of taxpayer dollars American tax payer dollars and taxixem status and all of these things. And that's where this is really
hitting a flashpoint now this issue. He's making an example of Harvard specifically, and it's going to be very interesting to see this story continue to unfold.
And Kosher, I've found it absolutely extraordinary that you've got all these left wing journalists who are actually taking the position of defending one of the most elite and privileged institutions on this planet in its position that you would think that they would want that funding returned to local
schools that are struggling in impoverished areas. It is extraordinary, and I think incoon assistance from an ideological point of view, that they want this money to go to Harvard, to this privileged place, rather than probably being better spend in the education system elsewhere.
So Republicans are rejoicing at the strategy of theirs. They're like, yes, please go and defend Harvard.
Shout from the rooftops.
Defend Harvard, because that is going to really play well with the constituency that they lost that they used to have, working class Americans that have completely shifted from the Democrat Party to the Republican Party in the last four or
eight or even twelve years, slowly and then rapidly. And as you say, this is one of the most wealthy institutions that epitomizes elitism, and there is this class divide that's only been widening in America, and in recent times they have fifty two billion dollars in their endowment fund that they enjoy capital gains on tax free so on and so forth. So this is not consistent ideologically with where the party's roots were, as you mentioned, and it's
also not smart politically. And I think the other side of the I was really enjoying this because they have no way but to win on this issue.
We'll moving on now because Michelle Obama is doing a podcast circuit and she is really tackling all the big issues.
Sometimes I get in the bed, I'm freezing, yes, And other times it's like, oh my God, take my skin off.
He's like, the change of temperature is wild for any woman anytime, and especially it's a.
Battle with a partner, right because he's always cold, and I'm like, do not touch. And sometimes I wake up hot and I'll wake him up. Did you touch the thermostat? Did you touched the thermostat? Didn't you?
He's like it did not.
Swear to God, he now knows. He's afraid of the thermostat. I said, I don't care what you do. Do not touch anything in this room.
Kosher compelling stuff, isn't it.
She has invented a whole new genre called throwing shade on Barack Obama. Like every single episode, there's something we've heard about how marriages can have a bad decade. We've heard about how she was angered that people have to leap over her to shake her husband's hand because he was only commander in chief for eight years and now he's some kind of weakling who can't handle the cold, is what she's intimating there. I don't think he would
appreciate this. And it's really really interesting, not only because it's not interesting to your point. The podcast is not doing well, even though she's somebody who has been successful with her previous podcast and her book, this one is flailing. And then on top of that, it's sort of like she's giving off this some kind of anger or just resentment in her marriage that she's had to one of the most powerful men on planet Earth. And I don't think people find that very relatable.
Yeah, really weird stuff, but we love to see it. Koschha Goatta, thank you so much for coming on sharing your insights. We're going to take a quick break, but when we return. Media Watchdog columnist Jared Henderson joins us on the desk. Welcome back, joining me now is he does each and every week as Sky News Australia's media watchdog columnist Jared Henderson, thank you for joining us on the desk.
Thank you.
Now we're going to have a quick listen to John Lyons because we talk about him a little bit on this. We do a bit a little bit on their show and he's doing some interesting reporting. Let's have a look you and.
World Food Program is appealing for food supplies to be upscaled immediately to address the hunger crisis. There America's editor John Lyons, how's the latest from Washington?
Ehud Olm has said, what is it? If not a war crime? How can a serious person representing the Israeli government spell it out in such an explicit manner that we should starve Gaza, that there should be no supply basic fundamental humanitarian the many of these children barely had any food or water or medicines. The BBC recently reported six babies freezing to death.
But Jared I thought that he was now there Washington.
But it had been the Global Affairs editor that's now gone to Laura Tingle and he's the editor America's He's gone to Washington to, as he said, translate the Trump administration to US people down here. But what he is in Washington talking about Gaza, which is not really his area. If he were talking about the US administration's policy, that would be different. For most of this interview, which went on for a long time, he only spoke about Gaza.
But he's a long long way away from Gaza. But I mean in a sense, he's always been hostile to the Israeli government, has been hostile to the Jewish community in Australia. I suspect that's one of the reasons why he was moved across to the Americas. But over in the Americas or in Washington, DC, he's still talking about Gaza and Israel.
Well, it's definitely their ABC, And this next scrap will prove that. Some of this puff piece they've done about Laura Tangle. Laura, what preparations are you making for turning your attention from Australia.
How are you preparing for it?
Will?
I suppose it would be easy to say it's going to be completely different. But I want to do for the world what I've done for Australia, which is the world ready for this? But I mean I want to essentially, I mean, particularly at seven point thirty. You know, I don't see myself as a newsbreaker, you know, I see myself as an explainer.
Jared, is the world really this person has tickets on themselves. I want to do for the world what I've done for Australia and is the world ready?
But also she's going to explain the whole wide world to Australia. So there we've got John Lyons in Washington translating the Trump administration for US mere mortals, and Laura Tingle traveling the world translating the world, explaining the world for us.
It's so absurd. How would we know about the world where that she legitimately thinks she's probably one of the best reporters in the world. Oh, I'm sure she has. I think that's the only thing I can take away from that.
It's a plumb job. I mean, no one's mentioning they had a sort of celebration for leaving last night, but no one's mentioned that Laura Tingle said this was a racist country, or that she said that the Coalition government under Scott Morrison was guilty of ideological bastardree. These things are forgotten anyway. She's now up around the world. She won't be saying those things anymore because again she's been sort of promoted upwards.
I believe she Collpeter Don him dangerous or that's right dangerous, and that's as you're going into an election. Someone's supposed to be impartial. Is she going to do that for the world. I don't know if the world are necessarily the world's up to Let's move on, because we've noticed that the ABC has a particular way that they introduce guests who are a little bit more on the conservative side of the spectrum. Let's have to watch.
Australia spends about fifty six billion dollars each year on the nation's defense, but a new report from the think tank the Australian Strategic Policy Institute says that amount doesn't match the current threats to Australia or even the future threats. Justin Vassi is Asby's executive director and full disclosure. He also worked as a chief of staff and advisor to former Liberal ministers including Malcolm Turnbull, Maurice Paint and George Brandison.
Let's get the latest from the ABC's National Affairs correspondent Jane Norman and Mark Kenney, a former doyan of the Canberra Press Gallery and now a professor at the Australian National University. Thanks both of you for joining us on ABC Radio National.
It's all very well to do that with the disclaimers, but do they do it when there are teals affiliated people or these so called influencers that keep getting a kid getting a run, who have got paid sponsorships with other politicians.
And the ABC never I don't think they should have, but they never said that Kerry O'Brien was once worked for Golf Whitlam or the Berry Catteridy, once worked with Bob Hawk. And here we've got Mark Kenney. Now, Marke Kennie's first job was to work for a socialist left or a left of center labor politician. So he's a former labor political staffer out of South Australia. Now that's okay. I know a problem with that. I mean, I'm a
former political staffer on the coalition side. But what you find is that anyone who's on the coalition side is nominated, like you know, be wary of this because this is going to be biased. But if you comrade Kenny, that's all okay. I mean, he's just telling the truth. And not only that, he is the Duan of the press Colory. I don't know how he got that position, but anyway, he's the Lurry Oaks or the Michelle Gratton of the press.
Guy.
I never noticed that when he was there. But all I'm saying is it ought to be balanced. If you're going to say, look, be weary this guy used to work or this woman used to work for the coalition, you got to say, well, be weary, this guy used to work for labor.
But they don't do that definitely, And that's the thing, the lack of equality around how they do it. And we could hash out whether it's appropriate to give somebody your disclaimer politically all day. We can talk about the merits, is a bad telling, is a bad radio, et cetera. But I have noticed that you get people, you know, Hannah Ferguson that that influencer who thinks she want to thinks the word influences a sogynistic so she'd real IQ
on that one. But this person goes on to the ABC and is not told to be somebody who is in partnership with a legraspender. Yes, right, so there are direct cases where the audience is getting very, very one sided.
Well, it's the other side of the lack of viewpoint diversity. You've got a lack of viewpoint diversity and you've got a lack of equality and how people are introduced now, I mean, I think we should read the report from our own views about it.
We're not stupid.
We can work out where people come from. But the ABC now seem to think that if if you've got a coalition background, this has got to be nominated, which is one of the reasons why they have why there's so many of their panels are completely lacking in balance, because why.
Would you go on it as the token conservative?
Well no, and many don't. And that's why Q and A panels have been so so unbalanced for many times, because many many conservatives won't go on another's like me aren't invited.
So luckily now we've got Laura Tigo to explain this, explain we wouldn't know what to do with that it. Jared Henderson, thank you so much for joining me. That's all the time we have for this evening. But up next is news, then then s