This is the Media Show.
With Jack Outing.
Hello, and welcome to the Media Show. Tonight, we'll break down the media's reaction to the Trump Musk feud and chat about activist journalists with media watchdog columnist Jared Henderson. But first, you have to feel sorry for the ABC. Sometimes they've stoked such a captive audience that the rusted on lefties watching will not even tolerate if our host has good manners.
Other businesses, trusts, and other investment classes.
All right, well, we'll have to have to continue this conversation. It's a complex topic, but I'm glad to have you back. Thank you very much, indeed, Tim for speaking to us tonight.
Thank you. Sarah.
You have to be a special kind of person to take issue with that. But unfortunately for poor hosts Sarah Ferguson, that's a serious chunk of her viewership. And these people often washed up journalists themselves and anonymous viewers. They linger on the cesspool that is Twitter to attack any ABC journalist deemed to be polite to a conservative politician. Former Press Gallery journalist Jeff Kitney was shocked at her manners.
He said, what an.
Extraordinary thing for a senior ABC political journalist to say, and this Twitter troll Keith Sutherland said he was absolutely appalled by the five words glad to have you back. The bye shown by our once great ABC is absolutely disgusting and it's time for Albow to make some changes at the top and board. And poor Rold Margaret well,
she's simply given up. I just can't watch it anymore. Well, joining me now is this week's panel Radio two Double Sea host Stephen Senna Tiempo and of course James Willis of the Daily Telegraph.
Now, James, let's start with you. What am I missing here?
Sarah Ferguson is all of a sudden, some biased right wing flack.
What's happening?
It's funny because when you played that grab, I had to stop and wonder what the actual issue was, and you'd have to listen pretty closely to even uncover where any sort of perception of bias is.
I mean, this is ridiculous.
It's the same thing that used to happen with Lee Sales and I think seven point thirty in Fairness is probably the best program on the ABC and Lee Sales used to copy this, just as Sarah's.
Coppying it for you.
Know, being really really harsh with her questioning on the government of the day, which is the Albanesi government, and in this case, a little bit of politeness to someone that's just had to fight tooth and nail after losing your seat, and then a fierce sort of count over many days to say well done, great to have you back.
I mean, it's just ridiculous.
Where is the outrage over the bias at the ABC shows? On a daily basis, We've had high profile ABC presenters post for selfies with ministers in the Alberaneesy government. People seem to be okay with that, some of the left leaning approaches they've taken. I mean, for something like this to blow up just indicate it's how ridiculous some of
these people are being. I think it's crazy. And for anyone, even littlone, a former Press Calorie person, to be upset by this is beyond the pal You can't even believe it.
Yeah, Stephen, there seems to be this enormous amount of pressure that some of these ABC presenters face to not be moderate, to actively be antagonistic towards conservatives. And then when I'm looking at this and watching this and seeing that they're probably seeing the shares and the comments and the likes. It might actually have some kind of an impact.
It probably does, But they've made a rod for their own Backjack. You know, the reality is that the inmates have been running the asylum at the ABC for so many years they've created this left wing utopia that that's what their viewers expect. But to poor Margaret, I know exactly how she feels. I can't watch it anymore either, and she's welcome to come over and watch us here on Sky.
But I think you're being.
Very generous to Tim Wilson, calling him a conservative politician by the way.
Yeah, well that's a good point.
Maybe a debate for a for another time, because moving on, those two royals who demand both privacy and public adoration in the form of social media likes have made a headlines again.
Down Jack Down, Down, Down, went up.
Down Wama Tumapa.
So what exactly do they want? Do they want to be TikTok stars or do they want privacy? Now, Harry just tried to sue his way into getting taxpayer funded police protection whenever he is in the UK. One of his arguments was media intrusion et cetera, and the safety of his family because of the fame his birth afforded him. Now that doesn't work if you were actively trying to boost your profile with weird dancers, and it is probably why the courts decided this.
Prince Harry, the Duke of Sussex has lost the later stage of his court battle over the level of security protection he receives in the UK. His taxpayer funded protection was downgraded five years ago. The Duke says that as a result, it's too dangerous for him to bring his family to the UK, citing what he says is unjustified and inferior treatment.
How much contempt for the average taxpayer must you have to demand that they pay for your luxury lifestyle in the middle of a cost of living crisis. Let's bring the panel back in to discuss, now, James. One thing that strikes me with this is, and look, we were just talking about it with that other story about the cesspool that can be social media, and I do think ABC journalists make a mistake pandering to that crowd and then they complain that they're getting bullied or harassed by
that exact same crowd. Get off there and don't tweet would be my solution to that. But the same thing with Harry and Meghan. Here, you've got these people, people who this cognitive dissonance that they must be living through, where basically they want to be left alone, but then they also are out there provoking and wanting and craving likes and attention on these same platforms.
What are your thoughts, Well, they're delusional and the hypocrisy here is just unbelievable. And I think also based on that legal case, to officially cut ties with the royal family and then be expecting the taxpayer to pick up your bill for security and continue part of the free rider. I mean, you can't have a bit each way. If you're not involved in the royal family anymore, that's fine. Don't expect the taxpayer to pick up the bill if
you feel unsafe. But it's one thing to constantly say we want privacy, we're a private couple and a private family, but then everything that they do indicates that that isn't the case. They've had Netflix deals, they've written books. The video and isolation, I think if it was a one off, you'd was quite acute interactional, though the music was pretty corny, but it's just another example of these people claiming to be one privacy and to continue on their own way, and then I mean.
It's just not the case.
It's a really, really sad chapter in the royal family. But the goal that they have to sort of be asking for treatment and also doing the opposite is next level. I don't think we've seen anything like this in the history of the UK Royal family. Jack, Yeah, I do love it. It's good content. Stephen, what do we think of the dance though? The real big question?
Well, I was just going to say, so we finally found something that the Duke and Duchess of Montecito are worse at than being royals, and that is dancing. I mean, Faedickham, you know, look, this is I think James hit the nail on the head here. They don't want to be royals, but they want to be royals. They go out there, they leak to the paparazzi, so there's always somebody around the corner taking photos of them, and then when the photos.
Appear there so we just want to be left alone.
Please don't take photos obviously, or stay out of the spotlight.
It's easy.
They've got their millions that but not as many millions as they like, because obviously there was the drama about not getting enough money from the king, of course, But just go and live your lifestyle. You plant your among beans in the backyard, go to the beach every now and then, play with your kids, enjoy your life. I mean, they've got plenty of dough. And look, I'll give Harry credit for the work he does within Victor's games, but outside of that, just stay out.
Of the spotlight.
Or if she really desperately craves the attention, because clearly they've got relevant deprivation disorder, go and make another series of suits, or make a movie, or do whatever.
Just leave us alone.
Stephen, that the court decision aside, should they be getting security, there is there a legitimate argument or a case to be made that it is out of his control and the public should pay for it. Look, there's a certain to a certain extent, given his profile, there probably is a higher risk than there is for you or me.
But they made the decision. They didn't want to be a part of the royal family. They don't want to do the work that the royals do, and to their credit, working royals actually do work pretty hard. They've decided that they don't want to do it, so you don't get the trappings that go with it.
It's as simple as that.
Yeah, And not only do they not want to do it, they want to commercialize their time. And you know, James, a lot of stuff that the Royals would do would be charity driven, it would be advocating causes, but they're spending their time monetizing podcasts, well, trying to monetize podcasts. I note that it can fall out of the top one hundred, But do you agree with Stephen there on the case for protection.
Absolutely, and I think it applies to most people that would get taxpayer funded security. If you're doing public work, and if you're serving in the public interest, then there would be an argument to have a car, to have a security guard. But you know, as Steven has articulated, these guys wanted all of it. They wanted to not be part of the royal family, not do the hard yards.
And let's face it, I mean for the likes of William and also King Charles and obviously the later Majesty Queen Elizabeth, a large part of the job, the overwhelming largest part of the job was public service and working around the clock and traveling the Commonwealth and going to all sorts of different countries and being involved in charities, and you know, they did it, and they did it without a fuss. But to expect that same sort of treatment without having to do the hard yards is just
next level. If anyone should be paying for their security, it should be their TV deals or their book deals or their podcast deals. Those big companies that are involved in those could be picking up the check, but not the taxpayer.
Yeah, it's a good point, and I think when I look at this, they want to be spoken about. They just want to be spoken about in a very specific way. It's kind of this authoritarian control. So it isn't true that they want privacy. They just want a very specific type of media coverage that they're probably not going to get on this show. But let's move on because TikTok has taken out a series of ads in the nine newspapers hitting back at the Albanese government's social media childband.
Now.
The Australian's James Madden reports video sharing app TikTok fired its first post election shot at the federal government last week, paying tens of thousands of dollars for a four and a half pages of advertising in the NINO in Australian Financial Review extolling this supposed educational and social benefits of children who use the social media platform.
Well, Steven, let's bring you back in. What do you make of this?
They're obviously you know, it's the ByteDance owned company. It's got links to the CCP. They are paying media companies the AFR. Nothing against the AFAR for for accepting that. Think, I think that's a fair enough campaign. But they're running these ads making the argument, putting forward the proposition that there is a benefit for very young kids to use TikTok.
Are you buying that? And what do you make of it?
No, Look, I'm going to take two sides of this argument because I do think the social media band is wrong because there were better ways to do it. Because we've got a bunch of politicians that don't actually understand what the problem is. They ignored advice from experts on this and thought, let's just simply put a ban on kids under sixteen or under eight and or whatever it is being on social media. But fit he can leave
me out of TikTok being educational. I mean, what the kids really know how to butcher pasta recipes and run at one hundred miles an hour at each other in some rugby challenge or you know, lean off the side of buildings or whatever.
I mean.
I believe TikTok should be banned. But there's people in this building now, if they're official phones, they're banned from having TikTok on it because of its links to the CCP. And then our politicians go out and get a second phone just to put TikTok on it. So you know, we are being led by idiots too. So yeah, there's half a chance that these ads might actually work on our politicians.
I have no doubt that ads work. James, let's bring you in here. I actually agree with Steven. I think that the social media ban is a bad idea done by people that actually don't understand the digital environment. But personally, I do get the arguments against it, but I'm more concerned by TikTok's ties and whether the individual case of these individual platforms is appropriate for kids.
Anyway. Do you disagree with us? What do you make of it all? Yeah?
I don't agree with you guys, for the simple reason that I think social media has become such a big part of our lives now and such an influential medium amongst young people.
And that's for a range of reasons.
From screen time and we know, look that the education standards are in the toilet. You've got teachers saying that there's phones in classrooms. Parents are having a nightmare with this from a very early age. So I think there's
a screen time element. There's also an algorithm element. And I think the social media platforms, not just TikTok, but also Instagram and the others that have reeling and scrolling sort of technology, like they've been given an opportunity to clean up their platforms and keep the content as you know, appropriate as possible, and it just hasn't happened. There's sex on there, there's violence on there. You know, there's every possible you know, concerning element on these platforms that is
just seeping through into people's algorithms. So for that in mind, I think it's so big that it would be silly for a government to not at least have a crack at regulating it for people under the age of sixteen. In saying that, I think it's going to be a very very hard thing to police and actually put in place and keep up. But I agree with you guys certainly on the links to the Communist Party in China. I mean, if government's officials are being told to not use TikTok, it's been ban in.
America, what advice do they have that we don't have, I'd love to know.
Yeah, Steve, and I see you want to jump in there, Jack, Can I just yeah, jump just on that. And I agree with what James is saying with the problems around social media. But there were experts, We've got some of the best in the world at protecting kids online in this country who said to our government, we will tell you how to do this a better way for free, so that parents can actually have absolute control on what their kids can and can't see online. And the government
ignored them because they didn't understand the problem. It was just easier to go for the grab and say, look, we're going to ban kids under eighteen for being on TikTok, despite the fact that we know we can't enforce it. We don't know how it's actually going to work. But you experts that know how to do it, we don't want to listen to you, because that might actually take a bit of brain power. Yeah, look at it's really
interesting argument, guys. But James' final word on it, and then and then we'll head to the next.
Well, I'm open to all ideas, and I always think there is an underbelly of banning something completely. But I just think like for the government, for the Albanezy government and also for Peter Dutton to put this on the agenda and start working through it, I think is a step in the right direction. But I do agree that the devil will be in the detail.
James Willis, steven Senta Tiampo, thank you so much for joining and hashing that one out a quick break. But when we return, Trump takes on muss. Well, welcome back to Stars and Gripes, the show where we expose the hypocrisy of the journalist elite in America. And what a show we have for tonight. It is really the dream situation for those activist journalists. President Donald Trump and Elon Musk throwing barbes in what seems to be an increasingly
escalating petty feud. And I'm very happy because it gives us plenty of content because when the leftist media feels like they have a win. That's actually when they overreach in the most extraordinary of ways. And what you are watching on repeat on every channel in the world is live coverage of these journalists salivating at the petty drama now Gaza, Ukraine, the threat of nuclear escalation of the Russia,
Chinese submarines circling Taiwan like hungry hawks. None of that matters because the boys we don't like are fighting, and that, at least for those at CNN, is the single most important story in the world.
Right now.
We've been watching President Trump in the Oval Office with the German Chancellor and a lot to get to here, but the most interesting and perhaps important issue, political issue and policy issue is what President Trump said about his now former friend. At least it seems Elon Musk and I want to go to Elena Treen at the White House. Elena, it seems as though we saw kind of the unraveling of a romance real time.
Look at that smile.
She can't even hide her elation. She is practically euphoric right now.
And I get it.
It is very funny, but really, who did not see that coming? Now joining me is the president of the Center of the American Experiment, John Heindereker, John, what.
A moment in history.
You have walked into a very ferocious feud between two people that I mean, really it was never going to last, was it.
Well, this is a sad situation. Honestly, it's an harassment for the Trump administration and for the whole conservative movement. And I fault Elon Musk. I think his attack on the Big Beautiful Bill was over the top and politically naive, and the things that he has been saying since, like about Epstein and so on, completely nuts, just crazy. But
you're absolutely right. The liberal media loves to have a distraction so they don't have to talk about all the good things and the popular things that the Trump administration is actually doing.
Yeah, it's such a good point.
And I mean when I'm looking at the way that the hosts are covering it and their faces lighting up, it's almost like some journalists want things to go bad for Americans, because then they were right all along.
Well, there's no doubt about that. They root for America to fail, they root for our economy to go downhill. They scam the numbers that come out every month on GDP and so forth, hoping that things are going to be going down. They celebrate if there's a dip of the stock market. They loved when Tesla stock briefly went down significantly, which, by the way, maybe about to happen again. But you're right. They root for failure, particularly when we have a Republican president.
Yeah. Really interesting stuff.
Well, moving on because as expected, the media has done a little bit of sleight of hand with his story. And just last week we were told Musk was a drug adult, mentally ill assault victim with a black eye, who had so little credibility it was basically a crime to have him work in the White House.
It's kind of a rough last day in government for Elon Musk, who showed up to the Oval Office for some kind of send off with a black eye, just hours after New Bombshell reporting on allegations of his voracious drug use in a lengthy article citing people familiar with his activities in New York Times reports that Musk's drug
consumption went well beyond occasional use. He told people he was taking so much Kenmi, a powerful anesthetic, that it was affecting his bladder, a known effect of chronic use. I learned that Today from New York Times didn't know that he took ecstasy and psychedelic mushrooms, and he traveled with a daily medication box that he held about twenty pills, including ones with the markings of the stimulant adderall according to a photo of the box.
And people who have seen it.
The Times adds that while his drug use on the campaign trail was more than occasional, it is unclear whether he was taking drugs when he became a fixture at the White House this year.
The coverage was ferocious and no one was taking musks seriously at this point.
This dude is a one man anti drug campaign.
These are your pants, These are your pants on drugs, And I do love the fact though that the detail.
Is he's the one who told him he had platifol. That means things were so bad he had to be like, Oh, don't worry, it's something weird. It's just an overabundance of a ketemy. But then this happened.
Time to drop the really big bomb. Donald Trump is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public. Have a nice day, DJT This claim, which then cannot confirm of course, what imply the Trump was in some way name dropped in the case surrounding Jeffrey Epstein, the notorious and convicted pedophiles who died by suicide in prison in twenty nineteen while awaiting
his federal sex trafficking trial. The accusation from Musk is about as nasty as it gets, accusing somebody of being a pedophile and then covering it up.
So wait, all of a sudden, Musk is a good enough primary and loan source to air the allegation about pedophilia and covering it up. They have no standards and there is no logic at all behind what they choose to air and what they choose to bury, other than does it help their political goals. Well, John, you kind of hinted at this during our last topic. There are these absurd allegations that Donald Trump is is somehow assisting Jeffrey Epstein and he's covering it up.
There's no basis for that.
And so we've gone from one point where the media we had no credibility for this bloy for a very good reason, to now they're saying, well, we can't confirm it, but here's the allegation, and they broadcast this baseless allegation to households all around the world. To me, it seems it seems inappropriate to say the least.
Well, you're right. What we're seeing here is a one hundred and eighty degree switch on the part of the liberal media. Now every single liberal commentator and journalist is going to be on team Elon, eating up and publicizing anything bad he says about Donald Trump. And the reason for that is that they don't really care about Elon Musk, but they care about as President Trump.
Yeah, it's a really good point. Now, it's my favorite activist, journalist, Joy Raid. She was sacked by MSNBCA, and she's got a new theory.
About why lots of people at the network who are critical of Donald Trump. I mean, and they're still critical of him. I'm assuming, you know, so I don't think that that that's but but I do know there was There is a lot of anxiety both there and I think in every media. We're seeing it at CBS, we're seeing it at ABC, where allegedly the view hosts were told not to go so hard on Trump, where there's a push for people to hey, do less Trump, do
more entertainment, don't be hard on him. Yeah, that pages there's a fear of him, So I think there's you know, and obviously I'm.
But not you were.
I mean, let's be honest, you were no different than Nicole or Rachel Maddow, where only in one way was I different. I'm a black woman doing the thing, you know what I mean, and so I'm not different, but I'm different.
John.
Do we really think that MSNBC is racially targeting their hosts?
Is that plausible?
Well, here's what's going on. MSNBC is in a state of crisis. They're like CNN. They have gone so far left that no one wants to watch them, and Joy Reid is a part of that problem. Her viewership is down almost fifty percent since the election. So it's not hard to understand why they're having a big shakeup at MSNBC. But the other thing about Joe Reid is what we saw in that video is her playing the race card. Right. The reality is that's the only card that Joy Reid
has to play. If you ever saw her show, it was obsessed with race. That was pretty much the only thing Joy Reid wanted to talk about. And I think MSNBC may very well have made a good business decision that that is not the way to try to regain an audience.
Well, said Biden's old press sec Karine Jean Pierre, has a new book in which she criticizes her own old administration.
President Biden's former press secretary, Catherine Jean Pierre announces she's writing a new book called Independent. I Look inside a Broken White House outside party lines, and she shared why she says she's leaving the Democratic Party.
Take a look.
I think we need to stop thinking in boxes and think outside of our.
Boxes and not be so partisan.
If you are willing to stand side by side with me, regardless of your political how you identify politically, and as long as you respect the community that I belong to and vulnerable communities that I respect, I will be there with you.
I will I will move.
Forward with you.
John Karine Jean Pierre. What a name, by the way, absolutely cracker of a name. Now this is the person that ran the COMMNS. So she stood up there, disseminated all the propaganda Biden's healthy. You're being a horrible person if you point out that he stumbled. She also said that Donald Trump was a threat to democracy. You know that This is a propagator. This is a person who
has permeated all these lies. She's the one that pushed all the cheap fake I don't know if you remember that, but this cheap fake phenomenon that we can't believe our own lying eyes. And now well she's an independent, she's credible.
What do you make of this?
Kari Jean Pierre was the bag dad Bob of the Biden administration. She stood up there a coupodium and probably told more lies than any press secretary in history, including the biggest one. She spent more time with Joe Biden than almost anyone. She was with him virtually every day, and she knew better than almost anyone that he was incompetent, that he was not in fact discharging the of his office. And she got up there repeatedly and gaslighted the American people.
It was an absolutely shameless performance. And the idea that she is now there's non partisan independent, she's at the Democratic Party, seems pretty obvious that she is trying to reinvent herself so as to sell books.
It's so funny to me.
It's the one person who probably can't reinvent themselves when they're the ones who's the face of the administration. But John Heindireca, thank you so much for joining me. I really appreciate your analysis. We're going to take a short break, but when we return we sit down with Jared Henderson.
Welcome back.
Joining me now, as he does each and every week, is sky News, Australia's media watchdog. Jared Henderson. Thank you so much for joining us on the desk. Now, the word misinformation, it's a very weighted miss but let's see how it's kind of been wielded as a weapon here on the ABC.
Can you say that you're unequivocally that your campaign did not spread any misinformation about Zoe Daniel.
I'm not aware of any misinformation that was spread at all, but that's a making some allegation.
No, not at all.
Just there's it was a very very tense campaign and just to ask from your side that if it was clean.
I mean to invoke the word which has connotations. And also the reason you ask it is because you're kind of inferring that the result isn't legitimate. So I'm going to be the first to say election denier. She's kind of saying misinformation may have played a part et cetera. You don't ask the question if it's not grounded in reality.
Now, what's happened happened there is that Cellly Sarah is running the line that Zoe Daniels campaign was running against Tim Wilson because they said Tim Wilson provided campaign provided misinformation. But they never produced any evidence of this effect. So this is simply an allegation without evidence, sort of running the Zoe Daniel line because she lost the election. And of course XABC candidate for the Teals, Celisara ABC sort
of ideological mates where they know one another. I don't know, but it's I mean, Tim Wilson was pretty quick to pick it up and he said, you know, is this the allegation you're making? And it was the allegation she was making. I mean she went into denial and said it wasn't, but it was. So it's another example of the ABC playing along with the Teals. I mean, when
they before the election, they were promoting them. After the election, they're still promoting them or they or they're sort of suggesting that they lost, but perhaps they shouldn't have lost. If money there wasn't misinformation.
It surely chill.
She hasn't done her homework, because you would think there would at least be some general proposition behind the words.
So, for example, well.
You accused Zoe Daniels of this and that's not what her position was, and she calls that misinformation. When he pushed her, she goes, oh, I don't know, she hasn't Actually she's kind of got a surface level. I know the word misinformation is a bad thing. So did you do it without even having any basis to.
Draw it on?
And it came up at the end of the interview. I mean, she just sort of threw it into the end of the interview was really on Tim Wilson what he was doing, and that went okay, and then at the end, well, well you explain yourself misinformation, you know, explain.
It, Explain what what are we even talking about? You can tell you what it is.
And I'm not aware of anything. I mean, there were are a lot of groups involved in that campaign, but in terms of Tim Wilson, he didn't say it'll do anything that. I mean, there was always an argument about something that's understandable but not misinformation.
Now we talk about some politicians getting a bit of an easy go, and there was one till that kind of had a run in with a crude comment. We'll talk about it in a bit, but let's see how the ABC tackled this interview.
Great to be here, first woman to win Bradfield, first independent after being a Liberal seat for seventy five years. What does this moment mean?
What's going on here? Jared Well.
Before the election, Nicolette Buller got a very soft interview on seven point thirty with Sarah Ferguson. Remarkably soft. Now, she was just one candidate in one hundred and fifty electorates and she narrowly won. I mean, there's been a recount, there may be further legal action, we don't really know. And now immediately after the election, she's brought in again for another soft interview. Now she will have no influence of any moment in the new parliament. She's one of
one hundred and fifty members of parliament. The Labor government's got over sixty percent of the seats, so the teals will be completely irrelevant policy wise. So she doesn't warrant an interview and certainly not a soft interview, and then you avoid some tough questions you might have asked her before or.
After the campaign.
But again it's another example of the ABC promoting the teals. They're promoting inner city wealthy candidates who have runners teals and campaign on climate change. They do it constantly. But this is just the later example. I mean, there was no reason to interview her after the campaign. Really, there was no reason to interview much before the campaign. But she gets a soft run and that's pretty much what the ABC does.
The Well, she also said that hairdresser comment, Yes, right about the haircut. It was a crude I don't want to repeat it. It doesn't really matter. But there was a controversy I guess to.
Pro well, there was a controversy to probe because she said something that she felt to a young female hairdresser and she felt the need to apologize after the event. So she felt the need to apologize after the event. There must have been something gone wrong. She said it was a bad attempt at humor. Well, I mean, and my point is, what if Tony Abbitt said that about a young hairdresser, what do you think Sarah Ferguson would have said, you know, will you account for yourself?
Will you resign?
You know?
But if it's Nicolatte Bullerwell.
She apologized it's all good and also, don't talk about it.
Yeah, and I'm.
Inclined to agree. You know, you should get people a bit of good faith. I wouldn't some of that good faith was given to the other side.
It was one side. That's my concern too, it. I mean, people make bad jokes all the time, all and stuffdown made one this week. You know it was a bad joke, but I mean he's been pillarid for it. But if you make if you're a teal and you make a bad jerke, well don't talk about it.
Definitely now, Laura Tinger, we went into a little bit last night, but there has been more good buyers.
Let's let's have a listen on indulgence, mister speaker. I feel like I've had more farewell from Nellie Milburgh this week. I'm leaving the gallery. It's been a really long time, but I think I'm leaving it in really good hands.
We're going to miss you enormously from the gallery, Laura, and an enormous thank you for your huge contribution to political journalism.
But we will see you.
Back on this couch.
They have done ads, they have done news packages. You would think that she was retiring and had won some very prestigious award on her way out.
Well, it's like to hear California, you can check out, but you never leave. David Spee does a big fair well on Insiders to Laura Tiggle, leaving the gory, and then he said, but you'll be back on Insiders very soon.
So she's changing jobs.
She's changing jobs, that's all she's doing, she said. And it happens. I mean they come and go. I mean pran Kelly gets to send off and then she comes back, and Les Oles gets to send off, and now now she's back, and Laura Tingles gets to send up before she even leaves me.
But it's out money as well, right, it's taxpayer funds that are being used to promote someone who's literally changing their title but remaining with the ABC.
She's just gone to another job.
And good luck to her. Good luck to her.
I don't expect much. I remember she thinks that the world might not be ready for her.
Well, I regret it a bit because she does provide a lot of material for me at Mini Watchdogs.
So I regret it.
I mean I Hopehape she comes back more often.
Jared Henderson, thank you so much for joining us. Now, that's all the time that we have for this evening up next is Newsnight.