This is the Media Show with Jack Outing, Hello and welcome to the Media Show. Tonight, we discuss a scandal engulfing a famous nine journalist. We'll get into the media's reaction to the Trump tariffs, and we sit down with skynews dot com dot au media watchdog columns Jared Henderson, who will unpack the left wing dominance of guests on one of the ABC's most important programs. But first, the campaign is in full swing and sometimes it is the most trivial of moments which are the most telling.
Photos with everyone.
Okay, it was an awkward moment, but not one any reasonable onlooker would be grudge Alban Easy. We've all tripped before, and although it was awkward that this moment was captured on camera, it wasn't really a big deal.
That's why the Prime.
Minister's response to the fall at an Aba radio interview was simply bizarre.
Prime Minister, we saw that you fell from the stage and says not this afternoon, Are you okay?
No, I stepped back one step.
I didn't fall off the stage.
It looked like it looks like you went down. I'm glad to hear you're okay, though, Thank you very much.
Just one leg went down, but I was sweet.
Now, it is true that he didn't completely fall off the stage, and perhaps the ABC journalist muddled the question a little bit by phrasing it that way, but to suggest that it was just the PM only taking a single backward step is just strange. We all saw it. He definitely fell down and had to be helped up. It isn't a big deal other than the fact that the PM felt the need to downplay it and tell you what you saw was not reality. Now, credibility will
be everything this election. Albanezi still has not apologized for taking flawed economic modeling to the last election, which falsely claimed that you would be paying less on your power bills. If he cannot be honest about a simple and harmless fall, then what confidence can anyone have when it comes to the big issues. Well, joining me now to discuss as the panel the Daily Telegraph columnist Tim Blair and Sky
News contributor Louise Roberts. Louise utterly bizarre interview on the ABC and I felt a little bit sorry for the presenter because the presenter seemed to just be reaching out and saying, essentially, are you okay, we saw you fell, and there was a denial of.
That very clear reality.
I found a very strange thing to correct the ABC host on as well, and we all know what we saw. He clearly came off the stage, whether he tumbled or took a step back, whatever he did. When you watched that footage of the Prime Minister, you actually felt sorry for him. I mean, because he was politely maneuvering his way behind the two union reps for a photograph. He didn't sort of say to them get out of the way in any sort of imperious manner, and then he
slipped off the stage. So I think, why even bother correcting it? But was he concerned that it was going to become some kind of meme, that he'd be described as the fall guy or the stumbling PM or something like that. But arguably it's now become the story rather than something he could have just brushed off and said, I'm okay, it's fine.
There could have been a very genuine fear tim of what the media might do with it. But to me it looked like this this autocratic control over language. It's not a fall down, it's a step back, And how dare you phrase it in a manner that I don't like. I want it to be called a step down. So this is misinformation.
Well, you know, who do we believe, the Prime Minister or our own lying eyes. I mean, it would be like me cam in right now that I'm not wearing a crappy five dollars shirt that I bought it a pederal station.
It's a great everyone.
The video is right there. But I think the obvious interview, as you pointed out, might have muffled or fundged the question a little bit. But I think the fault is more on the Prime Minister who came back with I didn't fall off the stage, which was that the ABC interviewer never said, simply said that you fell, and then it was redefined. It was like in our old players complaining after the video review has gone against them and we can all see what's going on and just to
keep the sort of sports metaphor going on here. I think the case here with the Prime Minister. If Richie Benno was still with us, he'd say, I think the viewers at home can make up their own minds about that one.
Yeah, we certainly can. It's a very easy one for us all to agree on, but moving on, one of Australia's most celebrated journalists has had his credibility shattered by an audio recording which is morphed into a complex court case. Nine reporter Nick McKenzie was the author of reports which accused veteran soldier Ben.
Roberts Smith of war crimes.
Now Robert Smith ended up losing that defamation case, but shocking audio recordings between McKenzie and a witness known as Person seventeen have sent the matter back to court. My colleague Shari Markson broke the story.
It's a verdict. The app gan veteran is appealing. But now secret audio recordings have come to light which casts doubt on the ethics and even the legal process of part of the case built against him.
No, I shouldn't tell you. I've just preached my doing that.
Like this is where like this.
Is from toples.
An explosive recording has caught nine Star reporter Nick McKenzie claiming he'd engaged in unethical behavior during their famous war crime case.
The statement about breaching his ethics relates to McKenzie claiming that he should not have been disclosing certain information to Person seventeen, But there was a more insidious revelation in the recordings which could impact the fresh legal challenge breaking.
Us on his legaltected you.
If McKenzie is to be believed, he and his legal team were fed privileged information by the ex wife of Ben Roberts Smith and acted on that information during the defamation case. Now, this is obviously a huge story. But the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age, you know, the papers that carry that arrogant, self serving marketing label independent always well, they took three days to cover the story and in my opinion the coverage has been shallow and subpar,
Independent until inconvenient, it seems. And the ABC was even worse, ignoring the story for even longer until they were dragged into covering it when the matter returned to court. Now, let's bring the panel back in. Now, LUI is quite a complex story, and putting aside the actual defamation case, the revelation of the recordings, surely there is merit in their existence. And it's a really bad look for the
nine newspapers because it involves one of their own. It's unflattering, really bad look of them to just sit down on the story and lay dead.
Yeah, when it's one of your own, you really can't run away from the story. You do have to cover it. You can be quite careful, hey do it, but you can't move away and leave yourself open to favoritism or perhaps not addressing.
Any particularly your brain, your braining, the.
Ethics independent always, et cetera, et cetera. I've found it quite challenging to listen to Nick talking about on that recording about his ethics, because he's obviously a very accomplished reporter and investigator and won many many awards, so I think this would be very hard for him to actually say those words as well. And Ben Roberts Smith, of course,
was a massive scalp for him to get. I guess in context, what does it mean now legally going forward, and what will it do to perhaps restore the tarnished legacy of Ben Robert Smith as well, or if it will do anything and sort of legion to people who look at Nick Nick McKenzie's reporting and people who support him as well.
Yeah, well, Tim, his legal team is alleging that it amounts to a miscarriage of justice. I mean, essentially, if he is to be believed and the legal team is acting on what was known to be privileged information. That's not how cases should be should be run, and the core will have a huge problem with that.
But putting all that aside, just the.
Issue of some of these organizations who were just so loud and arrogant and bragging about this whole idea of independence. Whether you agree or disagree, it has to be a story. Surely everyone can agree on.
That, absolutely. But I don't actually mind when media organizations or outlets take a little bit of time to make sure they've got the facts lined up. I don't mind seeing the occasional scoop. Even at our own newspaper, we will occasionally miss a scoop if we're checking things, which is how things should go, and we see too often people rushing in, getting it wrong and then having to recant.
But in this case, the information was all out there, as you showed, Charlie had the recordings and three days to reflect and consider and suck your thumb about what this might mean. That's not especially in the Internet age. I mean, for a daily newspaper cycle in the old days, three days was an eternity. In the era of the internet, three days is it amounts to deliberate concealment.
I think yeah, no, well said.
Moving on now to the battle of debates as Australia's broadcasters all fight for a chance to host public events with key political figures, and I'm proud to say that Sky News was the first off the bat and our audience will get to see Albanezy and Dutton lockheads. On April eight, breaking news Sky News has secured the first leader's debate, and a few days after Sky announced the debate, the ABC revealed that it too would host a leader's
debate a week after ours. But in their excitement, the ultimo obsessed and incompetent pr Flax of the ABC told a small lie ABC to host first free to air
federal election leaders debate. The formal press release claimed. Now, we don't know if the ABC's over zealous approach to the truth was impacted by the fact that they have not managed to secure aus single federal election leader's debate in a studio since nineteen ninety two, but that isn't true because Sky News has multiple free to wear distribution points, including sky News Regional. We also will put the debate on smart TVs for free and broadcast for free across
our radio products. But the people at the ABC who wrote the press release obviously have never left their elite enclaves to realize any of this. To them, if you live in the regions, you basically do not exist. They do not even tailor their press releases with you in mind, and this could explain why their regional coverage is becoming.
Just so sad. Louis.
It's this obsession, I think as well if you were guess working in pr or marketing to say first, we were first, we got it first, and quite clearly the news had been out, they weren't first, and they're trying to find these little qualifiers to come up for the fact that they weren't because they actually have a very
shoddy record of being able to do this. And in my opinion, it's one of the very fundamental functions that the ABC should be providing as a debate, but they can't get off their seats to actually organize it, and they've really let people down by failing to do that for so many years.
Well, they've got the second debate. I don't think we can deny that's the case, despite their claims, but as a national broadcaster they should be more focusing on the content of the debate and what the questions are they should be put to the Prime Minister and the Opposition leader as well ahead of the May three election, rather than, as you say, claiming to be first. And I wonder whether some of this too, is they're a little bit stung by Peter Dutton saying he's going to look very
carefully at the funding that goes to the ABC. Yes, I'm wondering if maybe if that is part of it. They're sort of trying to just.
Let me see how independent they are when the issue of their own funding comes up.
Tim Blair, let's bring you in.
Was it just an innocent mistake by an overzealos PR manager or was it a slight to those in the regents.
It's a mistake, or it's incompetence. And when an organizations getting one billion dollars thrown and did every year, I think we can make up for our minds again about that one. But I've got the distinct advantage here of being in a Sky News regional area. And one of the remarkable things about being in a free to wear sky zone is that the people who used to watch the ABC all the time, or at least had the ABC on the as sort of a background thing all
the time. You always the TV was always in the ABC. They've now all crossed over to Sky. Sky is massively popular in the regions. It's it's it has far less funding, obviously, but it has far more impact and it's talking to people in the regions. And I think that's another thing the ABC has got to look at when it talks to talks to people about its budget, is you know, it's got bureaus everywhere. I live round the corner in my town from an ABC bureau and no one's watching it.
No one cares that the ABC may as well be invisible in the regions.
Yeah, it's a really good point, and there'll be a lot of people watching a show tonight from Sky News Reagion all and basically the ABC is left to deficit in the market for us to enter and that's great. It means we get to talk directly to people in the regions, but it is an issue for them. Picking up on what you were saying before though about the debate, I'd be interested what you think the big issues are that the ABC should and I guess what we should at sky be asking the leaders.
About cost living Number one, undoubtedly the pain people feel every day filling their tanks up or cruising the supermarket ours, that is number one. That's what the ABC should be really analyzing and saying, what are the issues.
What are the key things?
How if you either of you ends up in the lodge, what are you going to do to fix it? There's no time for equivocating on this. We actually want to know the policy detail at this point. Energy of course, of what have we spoken about that, I mean that kind of fugazi of the two hundred and odd dollar reduction on the bill which never happened, of course, and
our borders, our national boarders. People are very concerned about who's coming in and who's contributing to Australian society in the sort of realm of the tariff obviously situation with Trump too, so there's plenty for them to focus on. It's all hip hocket focused, I.
Would argue definitely, and Tim, I think there is a danger for the for the ABC to do a debate from the perspective of someone from the inner city.
Oh god, yeah, I mean it might be hilarious, but it's not going to be hugely relevant to a lot of the voters. I mean, you know, we've seen the Prime Minister arguing that it didn't fall well. An ABC in a city debate is more likely to be focused on men having babies. There's all manner of sort of, you know, issues of little concern that become massive concerns as soon as you start speaking of them within a certain building in ultimo. So yeah, good luck with that ABC. It'll be fun to watch.
Tim Blair, Luise Roberts, thank you so much for joining us. We're going to take a quick break. But when we return inside the media's reactions to the Trump tariffs, Welcome back now. Donald Trump's Liberation Day has sent the market spirally, and the chaos has been seized on by his media adversaries.
Our job right now as Americans is to do two things. Remember that we all have agency in this moment and in this situation, and to trust our eyes and ears and everything we are seeing and hearing. Twenty four hours after Donald Trump intentionally detonated a bomb in the heart of the most resilient economy on the planet, the sights and sounds of his failure to protect the American people's pocketbooks are everywhere. Tariffs on basically the entire world will do what for the economy.
It will send it into reverse. Let there be no doubt about this. The President said today a whole load of economic nonsense, things that we know simply will not happen.
And how did the White House respond.
To anyone on Wall Street this morning? I would say trust in President Trump. This is a president who is doubling down on his proven economic formula. From his first term, we saw wages increase, we saw inflation come down, we had a Trump energy boom, we had the largest tax cuts in history. And that's exactly what the President intends to do following his historic announcement yesterday for reciprocal tariffs.
It's the Golden Aid rule for the Golden Age of America and the United States of America is no longer going to be cheated by foreign nations around the world. And as the President declared yesterday, this is indeed a national emergency to discuss.
I'm now joined by President of the Center of the American Experiment, John Heinderach, and John, thank you so much for joining me today. There is obviously a bit of chaos happening in the markets, But I kind of want to focus a little bit on the media reaction. Do you think it's been proportional. Do you think it's perhaps two short term or do you think it is an appropriate severe lashing of the President for his approach with tariffs.
Well, their reaction to Trump's tariff announcement, both in the financial markets and in the press, has been unanimous. I mean, the Trump tariff policy is an incoherent mess, to be blunt, and it's easy to see why the stock markets have tumbled, and it's easy to see why the press has universally, almost universally condemned these tariffs. The only press outlet I've seen that has really tried to put a positive spin
on Trump's announcement is Breitbart News. Other than that, I think the reception has been universally negative, and frankly for good reason. Trump calls these reciprocal tariffs, but they are not. Australia is a perfect example. Australia doesn't have any tariffs on goods coming in from the United States, and yet President Trump has slapped tariffs on Australia for no apparent reason, with no explanation. Soup really needs to straighten this out.
This is very different from his first term. In twenty seventeen, he talked about tariffs. There was talking the news about a trade war, you know, but the trade war never happened, and Trump pretty rapidly renegotiated a couple of trade agreements in a way that I think was good and life went on. This time, he seems much more serious about a protectionist agenda.
And John, what is the strategy from the Trump camp here? Are they planning on doing country by country renegotiations. We've already seen something happening in Argentina, But are they planning on going back through that list and recalibrating?
Is it even possible or.
Are we going to continue to see this very volatile reaction that spreads globally.
Well, I wish I knew. You know, he's imposed tariffs on so many countries. You know, he can go through one by one, I guess, but it's going to take a while. I mean, I really don't know how he's going to back himself out of this mess. Hopefully he's going to go to major trading partners the EU for example, the UK, Australia, some of the Latin American countries and try to negotiate some more specific arrangements on a one by one basis. Some of what he's doing here makes sense.
I mean, we really need to rid ourselves of this manufacturing dependence on China, especially for strategic materials, minerals and so on pharmaceuticals that we should not be relying on China for. But he's not using a targeted approach. He's using a shotgun approach.
Well, let's move on now because President Vice President sorry JD Vance, had a message this week for all journalists writing sympathetic coverage of an illegal immigrant who was sent to the notorious Megaprison in El Salvador. The Associated Press reports outrage grows of a Maryland man's mistaken deportation to El Salva prison, and CNN reports.
People were sent to this El Salvador in prison who shouldn't have been there to begin with, and in this case, Immigration and Customs Enforcement is saying very bluntly that this was due to an administrative error with this Salvadoran national in particular. Now a little bit of background as to who this is. His name is Guidmar Abdrigo Garcia. He's a Salvadoran national and crossed into the US around twenty eleven.
His first brush with law enforcement appears to be in twenty nineteen, when he was detained along with a group of men who were loitering around a Maryland home depot, and the local police department deemed that he was a member of MS thirteen, saying or arguing that it was due to his attire and a confidential informant.
JD.
Vance responded to the criticism, arguing that the reasoning ultimately does not matter. He was there illegally, so he was deported.
Back in twenty nineteen, an immigration judge looked at all the evidence, looked at all the data, and concluded that this allegedly innocent person that we sent to El Salvador was actually a member of an MS thirteen gang. He had also committed some traffic violations. He had not shown up for some court dates. This is not exactly Father of.
The Year here.
This is a person that we don't think should be in our country. Here's the most important point. Though lawrence is, whatever, the argument is, whatever the justification is, no one doubts, not even the crazy left wing media criticized the idea that we could deport this person they just took issue with the reasoning for why we deported this person.
Well, John, I'd love to get your thoughts on this story. It's a big story that's kind of senting in on this one specific cas as potentially being a clerical or administrative era.
But is the.
Media out of touch with the public's expectation that essentially Donald Trump was elected to fix the illegal immigration issue there? Do they really care whether he was the gang member or not?
I don't think so. This is a great example of where the Democratic Party and its minions in the press have seized the wrong end of an issue where the overwhelming majority are on President Trump's side. This man is an illegal immigrant. Joe Biden enticed ten million illegals to come across the border, and Donald Trump is trying to get as many as possible of these illegal immigrants out of the country, starting with the ones who are most dangerous.
But the reality is they all need to go and look, when you admit ten million illegal immigrants into the country, they are not all going to get a two week trial, okay. And the idea that we got to go on and on and on with due process for everyone of these millions of illegal immigrants is ridiculous, and the American people don't buy it.
Well said, We're moving on now because an interview with CBS has gone viral for all the wrong reasons, with journalist Leslie Stahl appearing to challenge a hostage of Hamas over the fact that he was starved while kept in captivity.
The terrorists became very mean and very cruel and violent, more so, much more so. They were beating me and starving me.
Do you think they starved you or they just didn't have food.
No, I think they starved me, and they would often eat in front of me and not offer me food.
Did they let you take showers? They literally ate food in front of him, and she interrupts him basically to allege that he is either lying or mistaken, and in reality, it was Israel that was starving everyone, and the poor terrorists simply had no food to eat themselves. Let's bring John back in now, John. It was a very short moment, and if you blinked, you would have missed it. But when I was watching that, it seemed symbolic of this
this subtle bias, this anti Israel bias. Challenging someone that's gone through one of the most heinous experiences can go through, challenge them in a way that I do think was rather unfair, rather than just letting them tell their story trying to pick holes in it.
What are your thoughts, Well.
This is the myth of the famine and Gaza that the press perpetrated. It was a total lie. But what we see here is part of the broader effort to normalize the savages of Hamas. These people are brutal, they are inhuman, they are monsters, and the press, once we got past the horrors of October seven, it's like, well, let's put that behind us now and forget about it and treat hamas just kind of like a normal political party.
We've seen that over and over again in the United States, and frankly it's despicable.
Well, moving on now, because MSNBC has released a new commercial spooking they're right to say whatever nonsense they want.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establ plishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
Or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press, or the rate of.
The people peaceably to assemble.
And to petition the Governor for a redress of grievances.
Ah, So MSNBC loves the First Amendment, now, gotcha. During the pandemic, left wing journalists were the most censorious voices of all. But as soon as they've got their villain and their target, they suddenly believe in free speech again. Let's bring John back in now, John that ad I love it. I love MSNBC because it's just unlimited content
for me. But you've got this self indulgent, this black and white self indulgent with this beautiful music coming over, as if they alone are holding back the whole of mega, they alone are going to save America.
It's just it for me.
These are people who are not free speech advocates. To do an entire marketing campaign on free speech is so ludicrous.
Well, let's insert MSNBC is in favor of free speech, except of course, when it counts. Whenever there's a real free speech issue, they are on the other side. So who is trying to suppress the evidence of Joe Biden's corruption that was preserved on his son's laptop. MSNBC squelch
anybody who even mentions it during COVID. Who was it who was trying to suppress dissenting voice, voices who turned out to be right about the stupidity, frankly, of the COVID shutdowns and the genesis of the virus and so forth. And who is it who has cheered on the Democratic Party's efforts to silence Donald Trump, their number one political opponent by actually having him criminal, prosecuted and thrown in prison. MSNBG NBC cheered on that suppression of Donald Trump's speech
every step of the way. So this commercial is a joke.
And John, do you think that when the average person, so you and I perhaps we maybe consume a little bit more media than the average person, and maybe we're across this, But.
Does a campaign like that, does that permeate?
Does that actually break through to their audience, because we know that they're having a problem ever since the result of the last election. Viewers are dropping off based on the rhetoric you had basically Joy read before she was put out to pasture. She was alleging that Trump, she was saying he was Mussolini and Hitler and everything. And if that's their idea of the First Amendment, fair enough, But they're a commercial channel. Does this work as a marketing campaign?
Honestly, I'm not sure who is still watching MSNBC. I mean, their audience has got to be a small niche far left segment of the American pe people. And ironically, I'm not sure how much of their audience believes in the First Amendment to begin with.
This is a really.
Factive marketing tool to try to rally the evidence that is still watching that the audience that is still watching that network.
I think more people watch MSNBC on this program than on their own channels. But John Heindurek, thank you so much for joining us. It was a pleasure a quick break. But when we return, Jared Henderson takes us through his list of gripes with the ABC 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 you have been at it again and you've found the most ridiculous Although I think it's very telling ABC commercial and we're going to show you just before we talk about it.
To talk about to ask important questions.
Does our current political system reward narcissess.
Who decides what's true and what is not To.
Challenge power mental health care in this country.
Doesn't that EQUI Oh.
Yeah, now we've noticed something in that. Can you give us a little bit of an insight.
Well, there are two labor politicians and their clip, and there's one former liberal politician, George Branders. But there are two teal Independence Monique Ryan from Melbourne and Zoe Daniel from Melbourne. Patricia cavellis the presenter. She was in Melbourne at the time I think now, or she's based in Melbourne, so that when he got an example there of the
Melbourne left of different kinds of it. So what you've got is you've probably got fourteen Independence in the Lower House plus the Greens, and you've got one hundred and
fifty people in the lower House. But suddenly the two independents Teals, who are most at risk, along with k Cheney and Perth, Ryan and miss Daniel suddenly get on this advertisement for Q and A, which goes all over the country and which would be widely watching the electorates they're struggling to hold, which is Goldstein and Melbourne and Key Young and Melbourne.
In the middle of an election campaign.
So that's just free advertising. Now they could have chosen anyone to plug that, but they chose those two people. Now, if I were Miss Daniel or doctor Ryan, shall we say.
Well, you will send you a legal letter, right?
I mean, I would be delighted with that because it's not simply an ad, because it shows what you're doing.
It's sympathetic, professionalizing.
Professional makes you look interesting, and I don't. I mean, I think we're in one of these things of what a coincidence moment that had happened to two t I.
Think the marketing team should have been far more careful than just to put a whole bunch of very left winging, left wing teals there to promote it. So you're not promoting just the show. You have to keep in mind you're an election campaign. You're using taxpayer dollars to promote politics, and it's their quotes and everything. But also it's not really the marketing team's fault because the only people that they tend to get on that show most of the
time are left wing people. They've only got a certain pull to pull rabs fraud.
It's like the rest of the ABC is basically a conservative free zone. Now, in the last couple of weeks, you had three the previous week you had three right of center to three left of center to one sort of vaguely right of center, and last Monday you had two left of center to one right of center. So the panels are massively imbalanced. And if you add Patricia Cavellis in, I mean she's a journalist on the left, So I mean basically they're sort of a lefty lovey get together.
And Zobe Daniels is one of them, or she's one of.
Them, and she used to be at the ABC. I mean, so she's getting I mean, I'm not saying she is involved, but her former mates of the ABC are putting her on and then she gets in the promo as well.
Now let's talk Nick McKenzie, because the audio that Shari Marks had discovered, You've got a point that you want to listen to.
So let's let's have a listen to this audio.
I shouldn't tell you, I just ap preaching ethics doing that like this is where like this is pably.
If they knew that impet to you that.
I can.
And Jared, the language that is using is very robust, and it's maybe being a point that has slipped a lot of people's attention.
Well, it is a snippet from a longer conversation and he's talking as a as a lytic and in a sense. But you've got mister McKenzie talking to a woman he wouldn't know very well, who is not is. We don't know exactly her age. I imagine she's probably in her
thirties or forties or something like that. And he's using language that you wouldn't expect people to use to people they don't know, and you wouldn't even want them to use it around the office because language doesn't offend some people, but it does offend other people, and you've got to be careful about doing it. So this seemed to me to be a very unprofessional approach for someone who is
presented by nine as one of Australia's leading journalists. Now I'm not sure that all our leading journalists speak like that in private, and I just think a lot of people had missed it because they were focusing on what was being said. But I was interested in how it was said because it just seems to me, look, I mean, maybe he should go to the Sydney industry with onsor courtesy classes and he should need to get to a courtesy class.
Again, it is the marketing behind it and without being too puritanical with it. And obviously everyone uses robust language, ye private and he didn't know he was being recorded presumably.
No, he didn't.
But in this situation, it shatters this image that nine wanted to build for this clean cut by the book Investigative Journalist. It really has damaged that whole image.
And there is a big difference between using language to someone that you know because you probably know how they react to language, to someone that you don't know or don't know very well. I mean, it's quite a different thing. It's quite confronting when I listened to it on Sherry Markson's program, That's what surprised me. Now that rare are other issues, but that's what surprised me.
And we've got one more grab it to listen to and it's from the Climate Climate think tank Rewiring Australia on the ABC.
Let's have a quick listen.
The coalitions pledged a gas reservation policy again without analysis or policy detail. What's your view on that.
I think you've said it exactly right. This is without analysis or policy detail.
When I do the analysis, it's a bad idea.
We don't need it.
Dare I ask you about the coalition's nuclear energy proposal, Oh, it will be too extensive and too late.
Jared, what did you pick up from that?
Well?
Saw Griffith is a climb as activist. So he goes on the World Today with Andy Park, and Andy Park doesn't ask about his own opinions. He asks what he thinks of Peter Dutton in the opposition and surprise, surprise, so Griffith doesn't think at all. So what I mean, in a court of or, they'd be throwing out I mean, that'd be so obvious that even a sleeping judge would
wake to them. I mean, these are leading questions, begging an answer, and you get the answer that you want, and then you go on and ask another question the same way. I mean, it's grossly unprofessional. He should have been asking Sairl Griffin about his own views, but to ask him to talk about the Coalition or Peter Dutton's views. When you know saw Griffin's views, you know that he's going to bag them, which it's.
Not probatent, and the way he's doing it it's bleeding the witness. As you've mentioned, essentially, he even phrased it, dare I ask about this because he knows? You say Dare I ask because you know that you're about to elicit a negative response. Now, that's all the time we have for this evening, but up next is Newsnight.