This is the Media Show with Jack Outing. Welcome to the Media Show. Tonight. We'll discuss a feud between Media Watch and a star ABC reporter, as well as a major media union attacking Peter Dunnan. But first to the vice presidential debate, which exposed several media falsehoods. Now, it was a refreshing exchange of ideas, not dominated by personalities but policies.
Look, I will be the first to tell you I have poured my heart into my community. I've tried to do the best I can, but I've not been perfect, and I'm a knucklehead at times, but it's always been about that. All I said on this was is I got there that summer and misspoke on this, So I will just that's what I've said.
Honestly, Tim, I think you got a tough job here because you've got to play whack a mole. You've got to pretend that Donald Trump didn't deliver rising take hopey, which.
Of course he did.
You've got to pretend that Donald Trump didn't deliver lower inflation, which of course he did. And then you've simultaneously got to defend Kamala Harris's atrocious economic record, which has made gas groceries and housing unaffordable fair American citizens.
Just to clarify for our viewers, Springfield, Ohio does have a large number of Haitian migrants who have legal status temporary protected maura.
But thank you, senator.
We have so much to get to, Margaret.
I think it's important to turn out of the economy. Thanks Margaret.
The rules were that you got to be in a fact check, and since you're fact checking me, I think it's important to say what's actually going on.
Thank you, senator.
Rotation of a legal immigration Margaret Bye.
Thank you senator for describing the legal process.
Have so much to get to.
The senator so much the book since nineteen ninety Thank you, gentlemen.
We want to have map has not been on the books.
Something gentlemen, the audience can't hear you because your mics are cut.
Both candidates were measured in tone, which allowed for the philosophical differences between both parties to play the lead role. It also shattered alt I told to you by the American media. There has been an insidious and coordinated media attack on the character of Senator James David Vance now add Holme and attacks on conservatives are nothing new, but this one was simply weird.
I think Kamala Harris is going to pick anyone as weird and creepy as Jadie Vance.
It demonstrates and shows us exactly what he believes in by selecting a JD.
Vance, who is quite.
You know, as the campaign said.
Weird, the agenda, the way they talk to people, the way they address people.
It is bizarre. It's weird, it is weird. These are weird people.
On the other side, Donald Trump seems to be drifting away from his own nominee because he's had so many weird views.
Unfortunately, Events's weird views are not even winning praise from within his own party.
Donald Trump and his weirdo running mate and the Republican apparatus behind them.
Will regroup yours. It's not just that she said a lot of things that are weird. It's not just a weird style that he brings. It's that this leads to weird policies. But when the public got to hear directly from Vance, many were shocked that this supposedly evil caricature of a Republican that they had been told to fear was not only reasonable, but he was articulate and a
lot of people witness this performance. Analytics company Nielsen estimates that forty three million Americans watched the debate on TV, with many millions more opting to stream it. Polling also suggests that the debate was received positively by voters. Now, this of course infuriated the hacks at MSNBC who have been overtly campaigning for the Democrats. They want you to ignore what you saw and what you heard because they
claim it was a lie. That wasn't the real jd Evance that they have come to loathe and fear.
There were so many niceties on their debate station. I am just kind of like, well, if you agree so much with jd Vance, why should they vote for you. I fully believe that Governor Walls went out there tonight and did what was practicing debate prep, did what the strategy was that the team put together. That was not the Governor Walls that I had seen out on the
campaign trip. That's not the Governor Walls that I had seen during the beepstakes, right, that was not the jd Vance that I know to be true.
I mean goodness, jd Vance was on that stage.
He was sorry about Amber Thurman he was sorry about a boy. He was sorry about a lot of stuff. We get things wrong, but do you give it the policy?
And The New York Times published perhaps the most radical and unhitched commentary of the debate. They allowed columnist Masha Geeson to make the argument that the act of debating itself was wrong because it puts Democrats and Republicans on a level footing, and because we all know that Republicans are evil monsters. By allowing the debate, we are justifying the acts of evil.
I went into Tuesday's vice presidential debate with a sense of dread because I thought that the last debate was
kind of a disaster. And by a disaster, I don't mean that Kamala Harris didn't hold her own against Donald Trump, or that Donald Trump scored any points in the debate, but the fact of the debate itself, and the format of the debate, which placed these two candidates on a sort of level footing, treated them both as normal politicians and treated the things they said as normal political statements.
Well, that's crazy. And dare I say weird stuff from an outlet which is so self indulgent it refers to itself as the newspaper of record. The paper of Record advocating against debate is perhaps the best way to sum up modern journalism. Well, joining me now is the Australians media writer Sophie Elsworth and Sky and News contributor Louise Roberts. Louise, let's start with you. What did you make of the debate?
Well?
Walslocks me when he said that he was a knucklehead. I think that's not something you really want a presidential candidate we're talking about in a way, whereas I think J. D Vance was very presidential. Dare I say he was very youthful. He didn't have an issue with tackling the fact checkers as well, which I thought was a very bold move and it made a very good impression I think on myself as well as I think audiences around the world too. So I just don't understand Walts at all.
I don't understand why has to embellish his history and claim to be in gentleman square when in fact he was in Nebraska and he's forever having to sort of overcome the sort of goofy, bumbling suburban dad routine that he's created in some sort of effort to win over the white male votes. So for me, it was definitely Advance was the winner.
Yeah, I agree, I agree with all of that, and Sophie he Waltz appeared to be intellectually outmatched. And I think the point that I made in my editorial, which is, I think for people that have been watching the media
cover you don't quite know who jd. Vance is, who were just getting little snippets of information from bulletins and headlines, they would think that he is this crazy, weirdo, ultra conservative nutjob, because that's what they've been telling him, and they've obviously polled that answer, they've obviously market tested it. It's no reason that they were all using this word
weird and you could see it all over Twitter. What do you think of the way that jd Vance was able to pivot from this and do you think he was able to effectively show the American people who he was directly?
Well?
I think he spoke quite well throughout the debate. He did challenge the moderators there, and you can see that they were quite quick to try and stop him from doing that. But when you call someone weird, it's kind of hard to push that away and fight against If someone says you're weird, how do you defend yourself against that?
So it's kind of.
A label that sticks and then does go throughout all the media. But I do think these debates are really important so that the American public can make their own minds up. With both of the vice presidential candidates speaking to their points, and I thought, you know, they were quite fair to each other. But I think the American
public are not silly. They can see sometimes these moderators favorably on their democratic side, and I don't think that's always a good thing because they can see through the bias there. But I think the more of these debates we have in the lead up to the election, I think.
The better, Yeah, definitely. And Louise, I think the other point to make as well, what Sophie was saying about the fact checking, the way that jd Vance handled that
was rather calm. And I think the mistake that Donald Trump made at the last debate was he got baited into this kind of the petty semantics over crowd sizes, whereas jd Vance was able to, I guess, give life to some of these policies that they're running on and take a little bit of the drama out of it, even though he was pushing back against some of these bizarre fact checks.
That's right. He took a very presidential time. I felt he took control. He sort of challenged it, but then shut it down and realized the whole point of this debate was to talk about the two men in question and their policies. So yeah, impressive.
Yeah, well, let's move on now. Because Opposition leader Peter Dutton locked horns with an ABC reporter this week who incredibly compared Israel to the murderous terror organization has Belah.
Groups have commented on the hypocrisy of that situation because there are no bands currently on Israeli flags being reased despite forty five thousand people Jarney at the heads.
Any Well, Israel is a democracy, It's not run by a terrorist organization. HEZBLO is a terrorist organization. They're a listed terrorist organization. And if people are in favor of a terrorist organization, they should declare it and that authority should deal with it. What determined, what.
Determines what happens?
Even though men, where are you from? I'm sorry? Which organization? ABC? So what's the question from the ABC? Just to be very clear. What was the question you asked? Now you asked the question about the listing, So I just want I want you to just ask that question again.
What determines the cast?
Well, I had presumed up until this point at least that the ABC supported the government's laws, and the government has passed laws supported on a bipartisan basis, but not by the ABC. It seems in relation to the prescribing or the listing of a terrorist organization. Hezbla under Australian law is a list of terrorist organization. Now, if the ABC doesn't support that, they should be very clear about it, because I think that's quite a departure. But you asked
me why why our country has listed Hesbela. They're a terrorist organization that they organized terrorist attacks. And if that is not clear to the ABC, then I think the ABC is in greater trouble. And even I first imagined that was the main question.
Now, just to make it really clear what you just watched, there was a reporter asking why Jews holding Israeli flags were not being targeted under terrorism laws the way that
Hesbelah flags were being targeted. Now it's no surprise that the ABC attempted to distance itself from this The Australian reports ABC disowns questions to Peter Dutton over Hesbela status as a terrorist organization now and the quote given to Sophie Elsworth, who is here on the panel with us, was questions at a press conference today were not a piece of reporting nor a position being taken by the ABC. HESBLA is listed as a terrorist organization by the Australian
government and the recognizes that in its coverage now. This response, which is quite reasonable, infuriated the journalism Union MEAA, which posted a very heated statement condemning both Peter Dutton and the ABC. They said, the National Committee of MEAA Media has unanimously passed a resolution in support of ABC journalist and Usher should following her encounter with an aggressive Peter Dutton earlier this week. Let's bring the panel back into
discuss Sophie great reporting on this issue. The media union inserting itself into this, I think that's fine to stand up for journalists, but for them to characterize Peter Dutton as being aggressive, for me, that's nonsensical. He was not being aggressive. I think you could make the point that Anthony Albanisi gets a lot shorter with journalists and Peter Dutton ever, was at any point in that clip his voice,
his tone was low, it was measured. Did you see that as him being aggressive towards the journalist.
Well, the Media Union have to be really careful Jack when they put out these statements, because they just ostracize some of their member base and that is not a wise thing when the ME double A is always desperately trying to seek new members to join up, and I think this is an unwise thing for them to do.
It could have been handled much better. And they do take their positions to protect particular journalists for particular causes that fit in with their ideological views, and this can be problematical also for the ME double A. So this is a pretty you know, eye opening way for them
to describe the opposition leader. And it's also a concern whether some of these journalists are becoming activists or are they're actually they're reporting facts and that's where sometimes the media gets themselves into trouble.
Yeah, it's a great point. Louis Kim Williams, the new chair of the ABC, has said multiple times now that he doesn't want young activist journalists to be viewing stories in that particular lens. In this situation, it's clear that the reporter was viewing it through this lens or they were told to ask a specific question. I don't think it's that, because the question seemed a bit too conversational to be scripted very specifically, and the ABC hasn't really
backed her in. But this seems to be a clear example of a breach of that guideline. Well, what do you think about all of this?
Well, it does because as young journalists and so ife, you would know that as well. When you're trained, you're asked to see both sides of the store, and you don't bring your bias or your opinion to a new situation like that. And I think to actually label for the Union, to label Peter Dutton as a bully is ridiculous because he's asking for clarification and we know that Israel's not a terrorist organization, so and hesbler is that's
why they're banned. So to make out that he's bullying a journalist, it's a very very sort of sloppy trope. I think to say that, oh, he's bullied her, therefore he's in the wrong, when will he is just asking for clarification, and I think any situation we have to really hold journals to account. Don't push your own agenda, just report the facts.
It makes such a good point. I mean, have a bit of resilience. There's always argie barji a press conferences. That's a journal's job. We're all criticized. I'd love one of these ABC journalists to spend one day in the shoes of a news corp journalist getting even one iota of the criticism that they that all of our colleagues get on social media constantly. They would not be able to handle it. But let's go to a quick break when we're back Tony Armstrong and the ABC's Media Watch
clash Welcome Back Indigenous. ABC presenter Tony Armstrong was criticized in a Media Watch segment this week for performing unapproved commercial voice sofa work for an insurance company.
A help company would cover you no matter who's driving your car, because you should be able to lend your friends and family your vehicle.
That's NRMA selling its pivot from an insurance company to a help company, which sounds much cuddlier and for maximum umph. The rebranding coincided with nine's Olympic coverage with NRMA, a major advertising partner, and the ads are on Radio two.
At NRMA Insurance. We're responding to the growing severity and frequency of floods, fuires, high winds and hail events by establishing help.
Nation By now, you probably don't need much help in putting two and two together because the voice you're hearing on those ads is none other than the ABC's Tony Armstrong.
And why was this such a scandal? Well, host Jeanine Parrot explains.
Now, there are strict rules around ABC staff doing external work, and the rules get tighter the more famous you are, with the ABC stipulating that any external work by a high profile presenter.
Is very high risk.
Now, Tony's arguably one of the ABC's biggest stars. He's not only on the breakfast TV couch. In recent months, he's appeared at night on a new sports show. He's one of many appearing in ABC news promos and the face of his own five part series, So come with me.
On my Hunt for Our Most Extraordinary Things. Let's go.
So we were stunned when we got confirmation that Tony was selling an insurance company as well.
And Perrot finished the segment by concluding, how any.
ABC reporter can voice a commercial for one of the biggest brands in Australia and not think that is a conflict is beyond us. If this is not a breach of the guidelines on external work, which says you must seek approval from above, we don't know what is.
It isn't hard to see that a high profile a BBC program criticizing a high profile ABC host would create headlines. The news was covered by Seven News, The Australian US Here at Sky and many more mainstream outlets, but soon the ABC was hitting back because News director Justin Stevens was less concerned about whether the guidelines had been breached and more concerned about the backlash itself, and The Guardian dutifully pushed this narrative for its mates at the ABC.
They wrote, ABC News director calls out racist attacks on Tony Armstrong and criticizers inflammatory mainstream media. The ABC News director Justin Stevens has called out the racist abuse Tony Armstrong has received, saying the Indigenous presenter has been targeted on social media and in the comments section of news
sites in a despicable way. Ironically, the criticism of the news coverage led to attacks on the host of Media Watch, Jeannin Perrott, as well, like in this radical left wing website Pedestrian, which plastered a large photo of next to this headline. Tony Armstrong was spammed with racist abuse after
his own employer, the ABC, ran a hit piece. Now, Armstrong did receive racist abuse after the Media Watch episode, and he actually took to Instagram to share specific phrases he received, and they were disgusting and honestly pretty evil stuff. Two things can be true at once, though people posting racist comments are despicable, and at the same time, Media Watch should be free to critique high profile talent, particularly when the criticism had nothing to do with his race.
Is the argument from Justin Stevens really that because there are awful people out there who will comment on Armstrong's race, that he has immunity from scrutiny. Let's bring the panel back into discuss Sophie Elsworth. You've been across this story. It's one which I think it's pulled the ABC in multiple directions. The main thing is I thought Media Watch did a rather good and fair job this story, and it's actually what the program's supposed to be doing exactly right Jack.
But obviously this draws intense criticism from some given that Tony Armstrong is an indigenous presenter and one of their most high profile presenters. It doesn't matter who the presenter is, their gender, their race, or whatever it may be.
If they have.
Commercial deals on the side, this can be a problem for the public broadcaster and the reporter, journalist, host, or whoever it may be must disclose this to the ABC, and from the report of Media Watch, mister Armstrong failed.
To do so.
So it's a worthy story. But as for the abuse on social media, appalling and no one would think that is acceptable. But you know, this is a problem for the ABC too because they put out that racism report earlier in the week which said they would call out racist abuse towards their journalists, so they had to act very swiftly after this report came out.
Yeah, Louise, what are your thoughts?
Well, I agree with Sophie. I think that racism is the number one topic it seems of the ABC at the moment. But also they clearly need to talk to their high profile presenters and really fill at them to say have you got deals or have you not got deals because we don't condone them. They're very high risk as an employment contract. Very clearly states a lot of commercial TV presenters have come unstuck with deals on the side and in a bit to sort of, you know,
make some money. So the ABC clearly have not become down hard enough on their presenters to say don't do this. It's not a good look for the public broadcaster. The taxpayer will not be impressed.
Yep, well said, Well, now, two stories of the week and Sophie elsewheth, Let's start with you, Jack.
There's a cracking story in the Daily Telegraph spat between Media Watch host Paul Barry and investigative reporter Mark Willersy on a report that ABC Media Watch did on some of Willisy's reporting. It's a juicy story, full of entertainment. I suggest the viewers check it out.
Yeah, it seems it was a bit of a bathroom confrontation between the two. I backed Paul Barry in this, so I'm not a big Mark Willersey fan, so I think my votes on Paul Barry, Louise, what have you got for us?
I was intrigued by a report in the Guardian about Millennia Trump's new autobiography or memoirs that were in which she gives a very strident defense of abortion rights and the right of a woman to have agency over her own body. And I thought this was very intrigued and given, of course, her husband's stand has a very strong anti abortion theme to his presidential campaign.
Louise, Robert, Sophie Elsworth, thank you so much for joining us. That's all the time that we have for tonight. Thank you for joining us. The media shall be back next Friday at the same time