This is the media issue with Jack outing hello and welcome to the media show. We have a big one tonight with the Prime minister's latest attack on the free press. But first, there has been a trend in the media where blind faith is given to one side of politics, while every decision by a conservative leader is viewed with skepticism and scorn. This inconsistency was on display when President Joe Biden promised to not pardon his convicted tax criminal son Hunter Biden.
He is not pardoning his son, which he could do. These are federal trojles. He is not doing that. He is not doing it because he is living what it means to have a rule of law in this country, and it is I mean, if you want to know if he believes it, you can actually see what is happening with his own son.
For years, these conservatives have been crowing about a politicized justice department. Biden politicized it and so on. What happened today The Justice Department convicted the president's own son, his only living son. You heard the President say he would accept the outcome of the case. I know no other word for that, but presidential.
One side Democrats and Joe Biden protecting the justice system, and on the other Republicans and Trump protecting Trump.
This week that blind faith was shattered. We're coming on the air this hour with breaking news.
President Biden has just pardoned his son Hunter on gun and tax charges.
Issuing a quote full and unconditional pardon to his son.
President Biden has made a decision to pardon his son.
Hunter, excusing any offenses the first son may have committed over the past decade.
And then came the spin. Journalists and media pundance over at MSNBC were quick to explain why this betrayal was actually very justified.
Barb I know you believe that this pardon was justified. How do you respond to even allies of the president who say this is bad for the rule of law, bad for trust and the justice system, and bad precedent overall. Just that.
Yeah.
I think the biggest concern is Joe Biden's flip flop on this. At one point he said he would not pardon his son, and now of course he has done so. And I think that is probably where this feeling of betrayal comes from. But I also think you have to look at the fact that circumstances have changed since he made those statements. We've had Donald Trump now elected president
and vowing to seek retribution against his political rivals. How better to get back at Joe Biden than to go after Hunter Biden, his son.
But not everyone was so daft. John Stewart raised legitimate questions about the sweeping wording of the pottom. You know, I get fine, it's good, it's right, It's just right. An eighty two year old man doesn't want.
To spend the rest of his life visiting his son in prison.
Can't a wave with all the time.
I'm sure the pardon is a narrowly written, precise drawn farewell note of compassion for a loved one.
The pardon sweeping covering offenses that Hunter Biden quote has committed or may have committed or taken.
Part in over the past eleven years eleven years is very specific. Well, joining me on the panel, his host of six PR Drive Perth Oliver Peterson, veteran broadcast Joining me on the desk, cal Richards. John Stewart is brilliant.
He's wonderful, and he's pointed out exactly what the problem is. This goes back to twenty eleven and it covers whatever he did might have done that hasn't been found out yet, or might have been involved in because there is a theory. Miranda Devine in her book The Big Guy talks about this, the fact that the whole Biden family was involved. Part of what Joe Biden is doing in pardonings Hunter is
protecting himself. Suddenly there's no conviction against his son, so we can't questions about, you know, where the money went and whether Joe got a few dollars out of it or whatever. The whole thing is bizarre, and the reason he gave the reason he gave is his own Justice Department is rigged and politicized. They went after for Hunda because he was my son. That was the only reason.
So Trump has been saying, look, the Justice Department has rigged and politicized, and Biden has no no, no oh, except for Hunda.
It is hit for him, it's just absent.
I think the point as well that John Stewart was making is that that exact period of time dates back to twenty fourteen where you've got the Barisma allegation from christ said very complex stuff, but essentially he's been put on the board of this energy company making an extraordinary amount of money with no qualification, with what kind of influence that's right?
And where did the money end up going.
So obviously there's a lot going on here, and the question is who does he pardon next. I mean there are people now saying he should give preemptive pardons to anyone, preemptive people, not charged, not not on lys should have done anything.
Just in case it all gets really terrible in the future.
Yes, so much for that moral high ground, Oliver, let's bring you in. The thing that really jumped out at me with this case is the media. When I went back and rewatched some of those clips, there was no skepticism, there was no probit of questions. If anything, it was used as a talking point, by the way, in the middle of an election campaign, so he was posturing basically for votes. Oh you know, Donald Trump is this evil person that uses he's going to use power maliciously. But me,
I won't even pardon my son. And the way that the media just allowed that to permeate without challenging it, I think it's rather problematic.
Absolutely, And even in the clip you played there about the flip flop and was justified the circumstances have changed because Donald Trump's coming to power. I'll tell you who he should have pardoned. As Kel just said, the preemptive pardon. Why doesn't he pardon Donald Trump? And I mean Donald Trump's lawyers obviously now have a the' very good reasons we even ask for pardon if you actually want to try and bring America back together and actually unite the country.
That's what Biden could have done in the cell of trying to pardon his own son. If he pardoned if he pardoned Hunter, and he pardoned Trump, imagine, then that would just sort of eliminate a lot of I suppose the hostility around even this discussion, But it is hip critical of Joe Biden to do this in the final days of his presidency. If you are a Democrat in the United States right now, you would just be pulling your hair out, just try to gather the pieces together.
After Kamala Harris has lost there in the presidential election, then you look at this and go, what in the world do we stand for as.
A political party?
If that has been the attack against Donald Trump for the last five years now, the Democrats themselves have absolutely no leg to stand on. So seeing any justification for this, and some of those clips you played before, Jack, you just can't comprehend it. It cannot defend the decision that's been made.
Yet some will always find a way. But moving on to the assassination of a CEO who ran a health insurance company in America, and the disturbing and brazen attack in New York City was caught on camera, and the murderer is now on the run, And for the most part, the media covered this story responsibly, But The New York Times used the extra media interest to launch an attack on the insurance company before the assailant has even been caught.
They write, United Healthcare has battled a range of complaints and investigations from patients, doctors, and lawmakers for its denial of medical claims. Those practices may face new scrutiny after law enforcement officials said that the bullet casings found on the site of the killing of the United Healthcare chief executive Brian Thompson on Wednesday appeared to have messages including the words deny and delay written on them.
Now.
The article also states that social media users were using the murder to express frustration over insurance claims being denied for them and quote others have gone even further, celebrating the death of a top insurance executive. Now, there was no suggestion in that article that these celebrations were wrong, but one journalist refused to dance around the issue and
instead blatantly advocated for the death of insurance executives. Former Washington Post reporter Taylor Lorenz, who rose to infamy over her bizarre reporting during the pandemic, wrote this, why we wanted insurance executives dead. No, that does not mean that people should murder them. But if you've watched a loved one suffer and die from insurance denial, it's normal to
wish the people responsible would suffer the same fate. And she repeated these vile comments on social media platform blue Sky, which is supposed to be this safe space away from Elon Musk. Remember, and the New York Post reports Taylor Lorenz defends United Healthcare CEO Brian Thompson's murder in sickening post. People wonder what we want these executives dead? Now? In my opinion, this is a call for violence and should
be condemned by all reasonable people. Kel it's a fine line between doing some of this more investigative journalism, and then at least putting forward the appearance that there was some sort of justification. Now, honestly, this Taylor Lorenz person indefensible, a maniac. The New York Times story is a little bit more gray because there are issues in the American
healthcare system. But the timing of that article, I thought, if you're a family member, if you're looking at that, is that really the time to have that conversation.
New York Times strade very close, I think to the boundary of what you do not say this was murder. If they were to say there's a problem with private health insurance in America. This is a billion dollar company. This man has become ementionally rich, and it's so terrible in America. Recently, one of the your companies said they won't cover and aesthetics beyond a certain point. If your
surgery goes longer than that, they stop paying. I mean, it would be awful if the anesthesia stopped at that point.
So there are problems. And one person they.
Also follow the law, They've got the legal framework, they're set.
There, And there was there was one person who was joining with Taylor on this, saying he did the victim have a pre existing condition joke. So once what's happened is someone has died, someone has been shot, then nothing you say about, well, you can understand why people are angry. Well, this might be justified by their anger with health insurance company.
It would be like if a cop was shot in America and then the New York Times ran a story about injustices made committed by the police force.
Parallel, more broadly, is.
To me, it's not appropriate that there is no justification. There is a way to have that fight. It's legislatively, it's through potentially social activism on social media. It's not justifying them away.
From an event like this, a dramatic event. Then you make the case there's a problem with health insurance companies. Otherwise it does look as though you were saying, well, Lauder it on himself.
You know, they behave like this, they get shot.
Yeah, and they've got no problems editorializing on every other issue. But there wasn't a line, and they're saying, you know, reprehensibly. Some people said they didn't characterize in the way that they do other things. Just what jumped out at me, Oliver. Let's bring you in what do you think of this whole mess.
I think they've lost the plot.
I think if they're as you said, Jack, if they're going to be effectively inciting murder, to say, if you're not happy with you, you know, health insurer, shoot the CEO. That's effectively the message, which is just wrong and should be condemned in every possible sense of the logic of that statement. I just I can't believe that that's what would be reported in the Times.
I think that this is.
A point as well where the media has responsibility, Jack, because if this is the sort of path we want to tread down in the mainstream media, then you can make that justification for anything. Oh I don't like the water bill, go and shoot the CEO. I don't like my electricity bill, go and shoot the CEO. No, you know, we're very lucky to be living in democracies like Australian Obviously in the United States, this is a really worrying trend, and I think you can obviously go and map that argument.
You can go and have that investigative piece of journalism that sits to some side well and truly away from the cold blooded murder of a chief executive.
Walking down the street.
I just cannot believe that we are able to even publish that sort of stuff and think that it's okay, because what's going to be thought provoking?
No, it's not.
You're basically trying to green light murder and it really sits really poorly with me.
Yeah, I completely agree, And look, I think the other point kel is a lot of Taylor Loren's commentary was on this new social media platform Blue Sky, which the left has abandoned Twitter x whatever. I'm still calling it Twitter. That's what it is. I want to hear anything different. Have abandoned Twitter to go over to this place. These are the the conversations I'll have. I don't think you're going to hear these human rights groups calling for advertisers to boycott this place.
No, No, it's quite bizarre. And when she put in her posts, there was a pylon, lots and lots of and I must add on this is where social media got a lot.
Of defense though on it, which is a bit disturbing.
But on the Facebook page for the health insurance company United Healthcare, there were thirty five thousand ha has underneath the news that this man had been killed, and only about two thousand, very sads. So social media, we know is a poisoned environment. It's a dangerous That's why we need mainstream media. And can I just say, this is why the New York Times needs to get intact together. The New York Times of twenty years ago wouldn't have
done this. They've gone a long way down the road of not understanding what good journalism is anymore.
Yeah, I would have liked one paragraph in there quoting someone saying, obviously, this is not the right way about it. Just I think they missed an opportunity to lower the tempo of that article in particular. But moving on another week and another insane segment, which went to air on MSNBC. This time, host Joy Read linked opposition to the affirmative care approach to child trans procedures to Nazi Germany.
Targeting trans people isn't new. It is an age old tradition which Nazi Germany did with brutally violent ends in the nineteen thirties. While the Supreme Court refuses to do anything about weapons of war in school today, they seemed inclined to uphold Tennessee's ban on gender affirming care for minors, while the decision is not expected for months. A majority of the justices parroted a string of debunked talking points, all under the guise of protecting the kids, just not every kid.
Well, Oliver, let's bring you in. This is a really interesting argument about affirmative care, and I think it's a really good argument to have. And I'll note that in the UK the Tavistock issue involved in actually being shut down and massive, massive which draws on it. I know that in Australia even people like Paul Barry have been talking about the dangers of this more affirmative care approach.
But you've got a mainstream network over in the US which is likening opposition to that affirmative care approach to Nazism. I think that I think that these people have kind of lost the plot.
Yeah, it's sort.
Of the theme at the moment, isn't it, Jack, And I don't mean to really lighten that up, But ultimately, if you can't mount your argument, and you can't get any cut through in a sensible conversation and obviously trying to present your facts and try to have a balanced debate, to then stoop to that sort of below exactly, you've lost the plot. You've lost the argument because that's sort of a sudden what people are going to go hold on a moment. I will have a look at that
and then how we ended up in this situation. It does not do the activist's role. It doesn't progress the activist's role in what they're trying to do, which is ultimately bringing about change, and that's what they want to do, and that's what we know has been done for generations.
But in this example, Jack, you just you lose the argument.
And I don't know why in this environment as well, MSNBC would want to actually join those dots together or try and mount that case. It just it goes to the core of its credibility.
Yeah, which is the plot. Yeah, it's so extreme, and obviously it's good, it's good to have debates. I just I think that is one particular thing where I mean, it's it's a symptom of a left right where they everything's Nazism and everything means this threshold. So then you've kind of you've lost it for situations where there is that real extreme.
Is exactly in fact, what Joey Reid did was to break Carson's law. Carson is an American lawyer and blogger Carson's law says the first person to cite the Nazis in a debate loses the debate. Right, that's a great law because it exposes how weak what they're saying is. And she hadn't actually paid attention to what the Supreme Court is doing. Justice and Leader question Biden's solicitor general, who's putting up a case. She put up a case
saying there's no dispute. This is really safe. Everyone knows that, and so he cided the case the Cash file. A doctor Hillary Cash has just produced a major report in Britain in which he said there were all these child psychologist who are really worried there are lifelong implications from puberty blocker.
Drugs and they can't consent.
And Alida said to the person bringing the case on behalf of Biden, do you want to reconsider your presentation to the court, And she said no, Now that's what's actually happening in the court.
Joy Reid has missed all of that.
Yeah, yeah, well said, well, we're going to take a quick break, but when we return, we're going to have a look at the Prime Minister and his latest assault on journalism. Welcome back now to a feud between Prime Minister Anthony Albanezi and his Environment Minister Tanya Pliversek and how the PM turned his anger towards the media for
accurately reporting about it. It all related to a draft agreement between the PM's government and the Greens over the establishment of a new environmental protection agency, but on the ABC, the Prime Minister was denying that the draft agreement even existed. There is a.
Draft agreement though, and a letter to you that says draft agreement on the top and spells out what that No, there's not that. Well I've seen that the draft letter from her, a draft agreement from Tanya Plibersek to the Greens laying out the amen.
Well, there's no draft agreement to me, and what we did.
Was make sure is saying that letter doesn't exist.
Well, no letter to me exists.
I was negotiating across the parliament and that's how you have to do it.
The Greens were of the view that you had agreed to this, but then.
Hours later, no, they weren't. David, I don't accept that. That's what they've told me.
Well, I don't accept that.
David Spears is a good journalist. If he says on national television that he has seen the actual piece of paper, then either Albanezi does not know what's going on in his own government or he has lied yet again. And in the same interview, Alberzi also struggled to explain why his environment minister appeared to be cut out of negotiations at the last minute.
It was you, Adamband, Sarah Hanson Young, but not Kady Gallaher Okay, but not Tenua Plibusk the minister.
Why not because we had forty five pieces of legislation David forty five across the economy, bets affairs, social policy, housing policy.
That's what has to.
Happen, was Sarah Hanson Young?
There wasn't it general meeting about.
Also, because he's the Senate leader for the Greens.
Politicians have tension all the time, even within their own parties, so I wouldn't normally make a big point of it, except for the fact that Alberzi tried to play the misinformation card yet again. Here he is on ABC radio saying that it was extraordinary that the media was focusing on reports of a feud.
How are things between you and Chenia plibusc Now though, because there's still confusion from some over what happened here and talk of it in eternal feud, can you pategorically deny.
That, Absolutely, there's still some It's extraordinary that the media want to concentrate on what didn't happen as opposed to what did happen.
The Sydney Morning Herald has been running articles saying that Albanezy threw Plibasek under the bus over this issue. So you have journalists from the ABC, from here at Sky News, from the nine newspapers, all aligned in what they are hearing about tension. But to our Prime minister, how dare we report on that? Power really does go to their heads. He expects us to only say nice things about him, and if he disagrees with the narrative, well it's all
just misinformation. Kel it's a Albanize has got a bad track record of doing this. It doesn't even need to be super negative. He's very combative and he has this very hostile approach to it. I think David Spears did a brilliant job saying, well, you say this draft agreement doesn't exist, I've seen it.
It made him very uncomfortable and once you gave me an option. Albanize is either lying or doesn't know what's happening in his own government. I'm really tempted to go with doesn't know what's happening in his own government, because a lot of the time it looks like that. But this feud is just it wasn't just the establishment of this new Green body that was that he put They also the Southern dispute in Tasmania. It is clearly they
are not on the same page. There's got to be a way for a good communicator to say in that kind of situation when Spears has got his number, look we disagree about things, but in the end we're colleagues or whatever.
They're obviously handle it agreed. Oliver your thoughts, well, yeah, spot on.
I mean, look at the track record, Daniel plivest gap in the Albanezi.
They've never been on the same page. You look at the decisions.
It seems as though anything that she has gone to do, as Kel points out, for salmon or nature positive, which is really going to have a big impact here in Wa, even in the hills.
Here in Perth.
The environmental approval was given on a very controversial projects it's like she does one thing and he's like, no, no, no, I don't want you to do that, and I'm going to undermine you. So it's not going to be approved. This is coming to a head. We can all see it. They can deny it, but it doesn't It doesn't look good, does it.
No?
Well said and Oliver, while we've got you, what's your story of the week.
Well, it has to be the flip flop from both the Commonwealth Bank and Australian Venues Co. How in the world you can have strategists and communications executives at these companies saying it's a good idea to not celebrate Australia Day or to charge people three bucks to get their money from atteller before it all blowing up and spectacularly doing a one hundred and eighty degree flip in just
twenty four hours. Has Corporate Australia not learned Jack? It is just remarkable how to big organizations, particularly Combake, one of the biggest in the nation, could make such an error this week and damage their brand to the tune they have just weeks before Christmas.
They'll never learn, They'll never learn.
Kel What have you got, oh, Joe Biden falling asleep in Africa when he's surrounded by important people and they're having a conference, and there he is, sound asleep. He's got a track record of doing this. He's done this on really important occasions. The thing that really amuses me is whenever it happens, there's some Democrat media supporters in America who's no, no.
No, no, this is but they told us he was okay, yeah, no.
No, but this is wrong. He wasn't sleeping, he was resting his eyes.
Kel Oliver, thank you so much for joining me. Unfortunately, that's all the time I have for tonight. Up next is lefties losing it.