This is the Media Show with Jack outing Hello and welcome to the Media Show. Tonight we discussed why the ABC didn't send a single reporter to the Outswitch commemoration event, will take a look at chaos in the US media, and as always, we sit down with The Australian's media watchdog columnist Jared Henderson, who reveals a questionable choice of
guests at the ABC. But first to a war between police who failed to tell you about a mass casualty terrorist plot and the journalists who broke the news.
The Daily Telegraph is reporting a caravan laden with explosives and a note with addresses of Jewish targets, including a synagogue, was found on a property north of Sydney on January the nineteenth. SoC sources have told the paper a note reading f the Jews was also found inside New South Wales. Police are treating it as a credible terror threat.
The Daily Telegraph splashed the story with the headline primed for Massacre, alongside exclusive and chilling details about how police had been quietly investigating an alleged plot to blow up Jewish targets for several days, but then came the fallout. Jewish groups were so furious that their places of worship were on terror hit lists, but no one from New South Wales Police had given them a heads up. Now in response to that, the anger is where the story really begins. From a media perspective.
The fact that this information is now in the public domain has compromised our investigation and it's been detrimental to some of the strategies we may have used.
Well, that was controversial Police Commissioner Karen Webb, who has presided over a litany of failures in her short time at the helm of the police force. Now you have a right to know if there is a terror plot and only the most bumbling of incompetent leaders would attack the journalists for informing the public. Her comments also turned out to be false. The investigation was never going to
be compromised by media reports. After The Daily Telegraph was criticized publicly for its scoop, the journalists took the unconventional step of explaining the behind the scenes steps they took.
Can I just get your thoughts?
Firstly?
Was on what Karen Webb, the Police Commissioner, had to say today. The fact that this information is now in the public domain has compromised our investigation and it's been detrimental to some of the strategies we may have used. Now, you guys broke this story last night. What did you make of that comment from the police commissioner that.
Got us a little bit angry. I'll be really honest, because the steps that were taken by this paper Masthead. Yesterday the editor contacted seen in New South Wales police said that he had some information that the Telegraph was looking to publish but didn't want to compromise it. Literally said, did not want to compromise any investigation. Nothing was said, and then later in the afternoon the editor was contacted
and said, look what you have can be released. So I mean and if at any time Karen Webb thought this was being a compromise, she could have picked up the phone and asked the editor Benny English, saying can I ask you not to publish because there is a danger or there's an ongoing threat? And I'm telling you that I don't know how many times we have not published when asked by the police, and this would be
exactly the same case. So what she was doing yesterday when she wasn't at a press conference when all this was being announced she could have picked up the phone and stopped it at any time. We would have cooperated.
Police tried to spin Web's comments, saying that they were misunderstood, but to us they were very clear. We don't know if it was in competence or malice, but Sherry Markson broke this story yesterday on skynews dot com do Au. New South Wales police failed to inform any Jewish community or security organizations of the fact that a caravan laden with explosives had been found in Sydney. Sky News can reveal the police also didn't inform the potential intended targets
of the threat. So the New South Wales Police told the Daily Telegraph to run the story. Now, in my view, that indicates that it wouldn't compromise the investigation, and then they turned on the paper the moment that the Jewish community became rightfully infuriated with having to find out in the media that someone wanted to blow them up. And this mess is not an isolated example of Police Commissioner
Web's history with the media. When a police officer unlawfully killed this poor grandmother, Claire Noland, by tasering her to death, Web oversaw a decision to take the word taser out
of the early press release. Now she should have been sacked by the new South Wales government on the spot the moment she did that, But she's been allowed to bumble on for some time, making terrible decisions one after another, like this moment she stood up at a press conference and thanked an alleged murderous cop for telling her where he hid the bodies of his alleged victims.
This information did come with the assistance of the accused, for which we're very grateful and I'm sure the families are very grateful.
Well. Joining me now is this week's panel, Managing Director of pr Council Christy McSweeney and former media editor at The Australian Darren Davidson. Darren, let's bring you in. What do you make of this entire saga, this shoot the messenger approach from the police who are attacking the journalists for a story for informing the public about this very real danger.
It's an absolute shocker. I mean, firstly, full credits about English, Mark Murray, the Daily Telegraph team, and also Sharry Markson for that brilliant follow up to the story disclosing that the police had not bothered to tell not only the Jewish community but the intended target. Look, it might be convenient for the police to operate in secrets, but that's
really not good enough in this instance. I think that the broader point here this is another example of why much of the concern about the rise of anti Semitism around Australia at the moment, and we've seen these kind of coordinated attacks overnight in Sydney recently in recent weeks, is due to too much secrecy and a lack of demonstrated action in public by the New South Wales Police
and the authorities. Yes, absolutely the public deserves for disclosure, but it deserves to see that the police and the public deserves to see evidence of the police that they are doing all they can to stop this problem, and that if they did, that would send a clear message that investigations are underway and bad actors will not only be caught and punished. But we don't have that because
we're operating in this kind of atmosphere of secrecy. And I think finally as well, my last part and on this would be we need to know from the Prime Minister how much information did he have about the planning of a mass terrorist attack and what action did he actually take when he got that information. We still don't know that.
Yeah, exactly. And Chris Sie there's lots of questions over that. There are some reports, perhaps a bit of speculation that the New South Wales Police didn't even bother to brief that National Security Cabinet and if that becomes short up, that is an absolute disgrace. But what I want to get your thoughts on as a communications expert, Webb's performance, the way that she is communicating to the public very
important part of that top job there. How would you rate it and do you have any tips for her?
Well, if she could go on on holiday and put someone up. Some chowd too have performed better, giving the public confidence that the New South Wales Government and the New South Wales Police a lock step together in reducing the escalation of the ongoing anti Semitic activity in Sydney, and of course we see it here in Melbourne.
Two.
The high levels of anxiety and stress of parents in the Jewish community whose children are now this week back to school, traveling in their school uniforms, taking public transport. That anxiety and that fear and that lack of confidence in the police after we've seen these issues come to light this week is very very real. Chris Mins, of course, has been a significant leader in making strong decisions and using strong language that Australians have been desperate to hear
and that have been missing at a federal level. The other point I'd like to make here too is that this is a joint state federal counter terrorism operation. When issues of this significant nature are undertaking by state and federal police, the minister is informed generally every step of the way, both the federal minister and the state police minister and the Premier and highly likely the Prime Minister.
There is nothing in my experience at an operation of this level inside federal and state government that tells me they would not know, and if they didn't, there are more problems going on in those governments than we know about.
Well, if Albo did know, as you're saying that it's customary for these ministers be briefed, and then he should have been briefed by by the relevant minister in this situation, that is an absolute disgrace and I think to Darren's point, it is weird that he won't just say what he knew that he's been dodging it at the press conferences this week, and I think that's very problematic. He owes
everybody an answer about that. But let's move on, because this week Australian media crews flew to Poland to cover an Oulswitch commemoration event.
Well, it's nearly eighty years to the day camps behind me were emptied, freed by the Allies of the barely seven thousand survivors of the more than one million Jews who are murdered here at Auschwitz. World leaders gathering here for the anniversary, witnessing the evidence like shoes, luggage, prosthetics and Zyklon B canisters.
Now, it was an incredibly important event considering the anti Semitic attacks that we are seeing here in Australia. Our Foreign Minister was there, and countless world leaders, including King Charles French, President Emmanuel Macron, just to name a few. But for our national broadcaster, they could not be bothered to even send one reporter. The Australian broke this story,
James Madden Wrights. Neither of Australia's public broadcasters, the ABC and SBS, will be on the ground in Poland for the commemoration of the eightieth anniversary of the Liberation of Our Switch on Monday. It's likely to be the last such service attended by survivors of the unspeakable events that occurred at the concentration event. Camp and journalist James Madden goes on to make this point to put the Outswitch
decision in context. In twenty twenty three, the ABC sent thirty seven staff at a cost to the taxpayer of one hundred and fifty thousand dollars to the four day Indigenous Garma Festival in Arnham Land. Let's bring the panel in now, Darren. That's a fantastic scoop by James Madden who got that before the event, so we knew what that plan was. And then the ABC refused to explain to him, refuse to give any comment back to the
public because they're unaccountable. Of course, what do you make of that decision and particularly the contrast in the way that they cover these progressive lefty love in events for indigenous issues and rights. But we've got this very important issue with all of these world leaders. I cannot think of something more newsworthy on that day to cover no representation.
Absolutely beggars believe particularly you know, as we've just discussed, I mean, the rise of this grotesque wave of anti Semitism in Australia at the moment, it just you know, the underscores why it's never been more important than ever before to remember in this post war world and what happened eighty years ago, and you know, what happened on October the seventh was reflected in those events eighty years ago, and people need to know about what happened, what the
Nazis did to the Jews. It's really really important. It's an absurd misjudgment by the ABC and their news director. They should be there, and Channel seven, Channel nine and the other three to air broadcasters were there. They have a very well resourced, as James Madam reported in his piece, European Bureau, which is funded by as we all know,
the Australian taxpayer. They've got the handout at the moment asking for more money to top up the billion dollar plus check that they get every single year from the Australian taxpayer. So there really is no excuse for this on a number of levels, whether it's resourcing or the news value of the event. I think the other point to make is there were many survivors from that concentration camp who came to Australia, and Australia, to its absolute credit,
opened its arms to those survivors. So, you know, I do not understand why the ABAC would not cover the event for both those members of the Jewish community here in Australia that have been making lives for themselves in many decades and the younger generations in Australia that are growing up now that need to know about what happened. We saw the misinformation and the lack of historical knowledge and context around what happened in World War Two around
the time of October the seventh. You know, a lot of people don't understand what happened, and that's why it's really important to cover the anniversary from eighty years ago.
Yeah, Christy, it seems like one of these one of these things that everyone should just agree that this is something that's newsworthy. And Darren makes a grow point. They get a billion dollars every year to cover the news. They're constantly crying about not having enough. They want in date inflation indexed payments from the government. But if they are not capable of balancing their books and managing this enormous budget in the way that these quintessential events are covered.
I mean, how can the Australian taxpay have confidence that it's been run properly.
It's really interesting that the ABC senior management at a board and chair level have been on a pr offensive almost for the last six months, trying to overcome this very real issue of city newsrooms in the ABC only choosing to cover certain stories and perhaps to cover those stories not objectively. They have made a lot of noise about improving that, but this here just demonstrates that even if that is being said with the true intention of doing so, it's not filtering down to people who make
those editorial decisions. This is a country that should recognize that as a significant international event for the Australian national broadcaster to have a presence at if the commercial networks, who are struggling against the current media revenue environment can outline that as a significant expense to undertake in order to demonstrate to Australians that we as a nation view this history as important, as relevant, and perhaps never more
relevant than it is now, particularly as Darren mentioned, to educate young people who are not getting any information whatsoever that has legitimate opinion and history contained in it. All media organizations in this country should take a decision to educate younger people to show as much accurate content as they can about these major events. And Australia has significant minister or representation at these events too, that alone should be recognized in this event being covered definitely.
Unfortunately there instead just making dumb tiktoks with all that count Christy McSweeney, Darren Davidson, thank you so much for joining us. We're going to take a quick break. But when we return, what is the fuss about Donald Trump's new press secretary? Welcome back to Stars and Gripes, where we tear apart the actions of the bidder activists masquerading as journalists in the United States. First up is the media's reaction to Donald Trump's new Press secretary, Caroline Levett.
The left pretends to be a champion of women until they find one who is a conservative. Once that happens, they love nothing more than tearing down women with the most petty and vacuous of insults. Levit appears to be a fierce operator, but she is also twenty seven and arguably quite glamorous. So of course the kind and progressive voices at the View reacted to her appointment like this.
I think, Sam, she's probably been put in there because according.
To Trump, she's at ten.
You know, that's what it is.
I want to be clear though it's not her first job.
It was her first press briefing.
She worked on the previous.
This is the first time I think it has been the She may be, but my point is that job would not maybe have been open to her.
I want to clarify that.
Yeah, yeah, and the abuse continued.
I would like this young lady who's this is her first job, I would like her to do a little homework because she said something yesterday that really pissed me off. And that was she said, there will be no wokeness here. Let me explain something to you, because without that wokeness, you might not have that job. Because because women were not invited to that table, women were not invited to many tables.
In this nation.
The reason we fought.
And busted all behind to make sure that you didn't have to worry about this. And now to hear you talk about it, and to hear anybody talk about the wolkness, the wolkness was put in place for a reason.
Attacking a woman for her looks or age isn't very progressive. Let's bring in sky New's contributor, Kosher Gata Kosher. Particularly that last clip that we played. It was so condescending the way that she was scolding her as if she was a schoolgirl, suggesting she needed to do her homework. I just I find it so hypocritical when the so called, you know, caring progressive voices just turned so nasty like that.
Yes, and as you mentioned, with conservative women, there's a long list of that booth of Trump's previous press secretaries, females, Sarah Huckabee Sanders, Keeley Mcaneni, other figures like her. His campaign manager the first time, Kelly M. Conway. Sarah Palin very famously had to bear the brunt of a lot of this. So people are used to that, I think in their bubble of the audience that the view speaks to,
that's probably kind of what the group think is. So she won defense, I guess is that she was speaking to her audience. When you take it outside of that bubble the way you are right now and we all can see what it is. It was also interesting too,
because she was conflating two ideas. This word wokeness. Didn't look like she really understood what it meant, or certainly the way Caroline Levitt meant it when she made that statement, and she was conflating it with civil rights and how women didn't have the right to vote or own property and all of that. That has nothing to do with wokeners, which is of course about putting people in there because of their immutable characteristics rather than the merit that they bring to the table.
It's such a good point. I don't think anyone's suggesting it's woke to give a woman a job. Very very duplicitous the way that she tried to word that and spin that. But let's move on. Because Vice President JD. Vance sat down for an extended interview with Face the Nation's Margaret Brennan, and the journalist got increasingly more agitated, and she failed to pen down on a bunch of gotcha questions, and it all started getting really tense when the topic of immigration came up.
If you had a violent murderer in a school, of course, I want law enforcement to go and get that person out of.
The point of the question, you change the regulation this week. That's the point of the question exactly. Giving the authority to go into church and go into school, the empowered law enforcement to enforce the law everywhere to protect Americans, in fact, a chilling effect arguably to people to not send their bids to school.
I desperately hope it has a chilling effect on legal.
The US Conference of Catholics Bishops are actively hiding criminals.
I think the US Conference of Catholic Bishops has frankly not been a good partner in common sense immigration enforcement that the American people voted for, and I hope, again as a devout Catholic, that they'll do better.
The reporter kept editor or editorializing, now it wasn't an interview at this stage, but a debate, and JD. Vance didn't seem to care.
We absolutely cannot unleash thousands of unvetted people into our countries.
People are good, These people are vetted.
Just like the guy who planned a terrorist attack in Oklahoma a few months ago. He was allegedly properly vetted, and many people in the media and the Democratic Party said that he was properly vetted. Clearly he wasn't. I don't want my children to share a neighborhood with people who are not properly vetted. And because I don't want it for my kids, I'm not going to force any other American citizens' kids to do that either.
No, and that was a very particular case. It wasn't clear if he was radicalized when he got here or while he was living.
I don't really care, Margaret. I don't want that person in my country, and I think most Americans agree with me.
Kosher, let's bring you back in. What a brilliant retort to a journalist who is honestly making the point, making the argument, well, if they were radicalized in America, then that's somehow it doesn't make a difference. That's obviously going quite viral in the way that he just punched through the question.
It has. It's become an Internet genre all onto itself after that, and there's all sorts of means out there that are really funny. I don't really care. Margaret is kind of a new rallying cry to his side of the debate. But you know, what she was doing is what the left side of certainly in America and really other liberal democracies have been doing on the immigration debate, which is they purposely sort of hide in the weeds that this program is legal, that program is legal. We
do have a vetting apparatus. Hence it was all done versus what the other side is trying to do is zoom out, look at the big picture, which is that mass migration is at unprecedented levels in America, illegal and yes, even legal even if it is ostensibly illegal. Program of asylum seekers and refugees. Is that helping the national interest? That is kind of what Trump advanced is their signature issue.
That's what he was trying to bring it back up to, and she was trying to getmired into Well, they were vetted, and this person got radicalized later but not before he was entered, and nobody cares, and so that summed it up.
Well, yeah, Kase, if they were vented, obviously whatever they did to vet didn't work. And that's the whole point. And I think the people are seeing through this. But look, you've seen the treatment that jd Vance gets. But how does the media interview politicians on the other side of the spectrum. Here's MSNBC at its finest. Well, actually, let me ask you about that. On this point.
A lot of people have been today and the last few days crediting your campaign and crediting all the reporting during the campaign that identified Project twenty Project twenty twenty five is essentially what looked like a blueprint for the incoming Trump administration to dismantle the American government.
They denied it.
They said they had nothing to do with it, said they'd never heard of it. Does it seem to you like that's actually what they're doing?
How it is?
It doesn't seem it is.
What an absurd television show just stating as a fact that Donald Trump is dismantling the American government? And what a soft hole. Leading question from Rachel Maddow. Okay, maybe that was just her intro though, soften him up before getting to the really tough questions.
What do you think America's listening to you right now thinking about what might have been had you been vice president instead of j Defence, What might have been had Kamala Harris been the president? Right now? Donald Trump, people hearing you talking about the pushback and the fight and that mattering, what does that mean in practical terms? The average person watching you right now who agrees that this needs a big pushback what should they do.
Yeah, and you know that overused term the frog and the boiling water.
We've been in the damn pot way too long.
He is given literally the easiest possible questions and he still manages to say the most stupid things possible. Kosher, I don't know what to say about that. First, I mean the fact that this show just goes to air with allegations. It's actually not even an allegation. It was just a statement of truth that the American government is being dismantled, you know. Put that to one side. The second aspect of this is the questions, the raised eyebrows, the way that they're just so glad to have this
bloke here. It's such a juxtaposition between the way that they interview anybody on a conservative side of.
Politics indeed, and the thing that's interesting about MSN we see, similar to the view they've got their audience niche that they speak to, and they're producing a product for that audience. They are declining. They declined precipitously after the election. I think they were averaging one point three million viewers last year, and after the election that was down to eight hundred thousand.
They've had a little bit of a recovery coming up after the inauguration, and Rachel Maddow is their biggest star,
she's their highest rated host. She was down to one day a week and had the sweet deal actually interns of what she was getting paid to do that, which was why they reported they brought her back to five days a week to help try and resuscitate that in the era of Trump News that we live in, and in that mold, she's going to try and get some people from the other side and try to skewer them as we saw, but I don't think they'll be successful
because the current people in the administration are actually very savvy with adversarial media, more so than Republicans were in the past. Then on this side, she's going to have very friendly, softball interviews with the other side of the aisle, and that seems to be their recipe. We'll see if they're able to hold on to the little bit of a rebound that they had in ratings, because if not, I don't know how long this is sustainable. Just as a business model.
Well, it's really good for us. It's free content, so I hope they keep going. The world's tech giants have had a pretty major change of heart backing the Trump presidency in and it has angered a lot of journalists. But this week Meta even settled its lawsuit with Trump at a cost to them of forty million dollars, which linked the decision to ban the president from the social network kosher how far we've come. At one point you had the president banned from Facebook. Now the bloke's Mark Zuckerberg.
He's standing up next to the president as if they're best mates. He's saying all the right things to get on on his right side. What do you make of it?
It's quite funny. He was they're standing at the inauguration. He donated money to the inauguration fund, and then simultaneously at the same time this lawsuit was going on and he settled, So that kind of two sides of the coin thing is quite funny. It is a remarkable turnabout, for sure. I don't think anybody could have predicted the level with which obviously Trump's comeback, which is much widely reported, has been because not only politically, just all these offshoots
and tentacles are also part of his comeback story. I suspect part of why they settled is also because if it were to go to trial, there would be a lot of discovery there and probably not the best communications internally within Facebook that led up to that decision to take to cancel the account of a sitting United States President, which is what he was at that time in the wake of January sixth, all sorts of infringements first First Amendment, discrimination, etc.
And they probably it's just in their interest to not be going to trial with again who is currently the sitting president, and it's just much easier to settle.
Kosha gotta thank you, sorry much a quick break, But when we return, we sit down with Media watchdog columnist Aaron Henderson. Welcome back. Now joining me as he is each and every week, is The Australian's Media watchdog columnist Jared Henderson, Now Jared. The ABC, as they tend to do, they always seem to pick the most controversial, controversial people to be in probably sometimes the most inappropriate panels. What have you got for us?
But I've got Sarah Schwartz who's become sort of famous on the ABC. She represents the Jewish Council of Australia, which, as far as I can work out looking at their own website, they represent about one percent of Australian Jews. That's what they sort of claim. Academics and people like that. But of course the ABC loves them because they really like a Jew who's opposed to Israel. So a Jew who's a now designerst Jew, they love them. Like if you've got a Liberal Party guy who now criticized the
Liberal Party, they always get on the ABC. And so what's happened here is that Sarah Swart's got the other day, got eight minutes very soft interview on ABC TV News Breakfast just sort of bagging, just bagging Israel and bagging other Jews in Australia for supporting Israel and essentially blaming Peter Dutton for anti Semitism. Now that's a real stretch. So you've got you've got people fire bombing places, and you've got people scrawling anti Semeri, anti Semitics messages on walls.
But according to Sarah Schwartz, it's all Peter Dutton's fast.
Well, let's look at this for the audience. We've got to grab and let's take a listen.
I will not stop speaking about how Peter Dutton and the Coalition are misusing and exploiting the rise in anti Semitism, because I think that that is something that is fueling division and racism and anti semitism towards Jewish people. And you know, he has a very big incentive to misinterpret what I say, and the murder press does as well, because I don't think that they are actually committed to addressing racism.
Now, Jared, the interesting thing about this is the ABC has a little spreadsheet where they put down the names of people from different voices, and they would say, oh, well, we've had a Jewish person on tick. Now we can get somebody from the from the other side of the debate.
Yeah, that's right. I mean it's a sort of a disguise because Sarah Sworts is a very controversial figure in the Jewish community outside the Jewish community. I mean, if you're going around calling Peter responsible for any Semitism, you've got to be pretty controversial. But she goes down the list of Jewish speakers, you see, and nothing the other list she balanced that was someone from the Greens or a teal that balances, or someone from the left of
the Labor Party that balances, which is just fake. But it comes up in their in their figures when they will calculate them all up a sort of even balance. But of course it's not.
Well. Now, let's talk about ABC Radio National. What have you found well?
Early on Saturday morning last I was listening to Nick Bryant X, a BBC guy, he's very clever guy, and he was talking on the new program he's running Saturday Extra, and lo behold, I heard him talking to an American commentator. It was quite reasonable, and Brian came up with the idea that Trump's losing his energy. He's sort of going to hand over the I think there's a clip of it here. He's going to hand over. He's going to hand over the presidency.
Who elon Musk, he's notorious for being low energy. Let's have a listen.
One of the quickest ways to get fired in the first Trump administration is to get more attention than Trump. But I'm intrigued by this caddy because it does seem like he is willing to be eclipsed occasionally by Musk, and I wonder what that tells us about his appetite for the job. He's seventy eight, He's not seventy as he was the first time round. There's a different energy level.
We saw that during the campaign. I wonder if he's more willing to sort of outsource his presidency to people like a Musk because he wants to spend a bit more time on the golf course. Perhaps he hasn't got the energy levels that he had the first time round.
Yeah, and charity. He's also politically inepty because everybody knows that jd Vance has been groomed for the top job, that it is a very t chick thing that's happening there, And to make it seem like Elon Musk is, I think it's a bit deceptive, to be honest.
And I think there's a map of it. I mean, after this, I turned on American television, was watching it and there was Donald Trump. That very morning, he'd got up in Washington, DC. He'd flow into North Carolina to talk to people about the devastating floods that had there some time ago. Then he flew to La Airport. Then he took a flight around the areas of some of the bushfires. Then he had a lengthy meeting. I was watching it around for over an hour, but perhaps an
hour and a quarter. With there are about thirty people in the room, including the mirror of Los Angeles. He went through all the detail people, asking all these technical questions. He sounded a bit like a property developer, but he certainly knew what he was talking about. And then he flew onto Los Angeles for the night to prepare for something else the next morning. So that was the Friday
American time. I was watching it on Saturday. Australian time is in Eastern time, and there's Nick Bryan saying the man energy. I mean, I couldn't imagine anyone.
You can make a lot of allegations against Donald Trump, him being low energy seems like the one thing you cannot accuse that man of it.
Yeah, now you've.
Got another issue with mcbrian's show. So let's have a listen to this grab and one of the promises that he's made.
Weike committing to bringing you a diversity of voices, some of you you'll agree with, some of whom you won't, but hopefully all of them will be insightful and make more sense of our world. And we will try to abide by one of the first rules in journalism, never be boring. I hope you'll enjoy the New Saturday.
Extra Jared a diversity of voices. That would be the very first time that's ever happened on the ABC.
But the inter thing is that Nick Brian is saying that this is a brand new idea, and it is. I didn't know how long it's going to last for until there's opposition from management and colleagues and from the audio left wing audience.
But he.
Now he's taken over from Frand Kelly, who always says she was an activist and he's now come up with this brand new idea, have a diversity of viewpoints. And what I know about the notice about the new chairman, Kim Williams is that he's addressed a lot of problems at the ABC publicly, but he's never addressed the issue of the lack of viewpoint diversity because they all agree with each other. Now in comes Nick Bryant, who's on
the left. XBC guys, BBC guys on the left, but he's saying, I'm going to put a bit of balance on my program. This is a brand new idea. So there were over a billion dollars a year and they get a guy x A BBC who comes on and says, brand new idea, let's keep some different views on.
The point's talk to people we might disagree with who have thought that could be interesting.
He very did last that, David, as as you imply it, can he continue. There'll be a lot of opposition because no one else does it, because you're in a conservative free zone where essentially everyone agrees with everyone else. So good luck to Nick.
It sounds like a bit of a nasty place sometimes to be a conservative. Jared Hennison, thank you so much, as always for joining us. That's all the time that we have for tonight, But up next is Newsnight.
Then then