← The Morning Edition
Loading summary
Transcript29 lines
- [00:05]
A
Carl Stefanovic was the face of Australian morning television for 25 years, lauded for wearing the same suit for a year to highlight sexism, laughed at for showing up drunk on air following the logies. Now he's agreed to part ways with nine after he featured a far right anti Islam British activist by the name of Tommy Robinson on his podcast. I'm Benjamin Price filling in for Samantha Selinger Morris and you're listening to the Morning Edition from the Age and the Sydney Morning Herald. Today columnist and senior journalist Jacqueline Mailey on whether the Stefanovic saga is some sort of rite of passage for the middle aged man or does it signify a fundamental shift in mainstream media. Jack, you've interviewed many politicians over your career. How many times have you signed off interviews by saying, I love you, mate?
- [01:00]
B
Absolutely never. And you know, I've interviewed some very, some politicians are very nice, but they do not evoke those feelings of affection. No, it was a very strange way to sign off an interview. And also I think probably connotes the extremely chummy, very warm, very friendly, very non confrontational interview that Karl did, which is, you know, sort of fine. But I suppose if you're going to, if you're going to hold yourself out as being a warrior of free speech, then perhaps you need to contest some of the more controversial claims that a person like Tommy Robinson has made, not to mention the absolute misinformation and straight out lies that he peddles, particularly about Muslim people, specifically around this one young Syrian boy actually who was the victim of crime. And Tommy Robinson did this whole sort of documentary about how actually the Syrian boy was the perpetrator in this sort of violent incident. And the Syrian young man has actually sued, successfully sued Tommy Robertson for libel. And he keeps repeating this libel. So those are facts that have been established by a British court and Tommy Robinson was just allowed to kind of lie openly about a matter of great seriousness on the podcast. And I guess the broader social context, particularly in Britain for this, is that there's a real pushback against immigration. There is a lot of, I would say, vilification of Muslim people happening in the United Kingdom and Muslim immigrants in particular. And we're seeing the consequences of these clashes on the streets in the United Kingdom, most recently in Belfast. So, you know, there is a lot of, it's actually translating into violence, this issue in these, these conflicts. So I guess ethically you would want to tread very carefully around such issues.
- [02:40]
A
So did you consider Carl Stefanovic a journalist?
- [02:44]
B
I mean, I don't want to be snobby about it, because I think what they do like, I guess the short answer is no in the sense that he's not, he's not a reporter, he's more of a presenter, I suppose. But having said that, I think he self describes as a journalist. Like I went back and listened to his when he won, I think the gold Logie in 2011, I think it was, he gave a speech where he said that Laurie Oakes, the legendary Broadway broadcast journalist, political journalist from Channel nine, was his hero and that was what he wanted to do and that was why he wanted to be in the business of journalism. And he did describe himself as a journalist. So I'm not sure what Laurie Oakes would have made of this interview he did with Tommy Robinson, but I don't think he would have. He would have signed off as a piece of credible journalism.
- [03:25]
A
So why do you think these so called podcast bros are so excited about freedom of speech? Is this an American import or is there something else going on here?
- [03:35]
B
I mean, I think it's part of a wider structural shift that we're seeing in our politics, which is, you know, a sort of surge in support for some right wing populist views, but also I would say more broadly a backlash against some of the gains that progressivism has made over the last sort of decade or two decades. And feminism and the gains of feminism are sort of like front and center in a lot of the pushback, I think, and a lot of the reaction. But it's a sense of the rules having changed and some people being the rules, you know, social rules, rules of ethical behaviour, rules of ethics and professionalism within any kind of industry. They've all changed. And some people don't like that. Some people prefer, I suppose, the old way of operating. And so there's a huge backlash against it culturally, I think, across the globe or in the west at least. And yeah, Carl is one sort of small part of that.
- [04:27]
A
So what can you tell us about sort of this shift more generally to podcasting? Is there much money to be made in podcasting? And I was also wondering, how would you say the algorithm rewards particular topics or how does it function here?
- [04:42]
B
Yeah, podcasting is kind of like an absolute boom industry, right? Like there's. Everybody will have seen the enormous proliferation of podcasts across all of the different platforms. Every single news organization, including our own, is trying to really get into this area and it's really exciting. I mean, I have lots of different podcasts that I listen to and they're all a sort of window into worlds that I would never, ever be able to access if it wasn't for these podcasts. I also think. I think there's something about the lack of formality, the authenticity, and the sort of conversational rapport that people have within sort of the best podcasts. It's very unvarnished, and you feel like you're getting the real thing. And in a world where there's a lot of misinformation, social media is like, you know, pulling us in a million different directions. We don't know what's real and what's not. There's something really authentic that I think people connect with with the podcast stuff, and it's stripped of the formality of, like, legacy media. So it's not like, you know, you and I are not talking to each other like we're doing an rn, you know, an AB interview. It's much more informal. And I think people really are yearning for that, actually. So that's what I would say about podcasting. There's so much money in it because people are flocking to that form of media. Right? So we know that the algorithm, across all social media platforms, thrives on eliciting strong emotion. And, you know, there's just been a really good book written in Australia about it by a guy called Ed Koper called angertainment, where if you can elicit a strong emotion of anger or reaction or, you know, strong negative emotion, outrage, even, then you're more likely to click on it through, engage with it, to get sort of head up by it, and then, you know, the algorithm will reward you with more of that similar kind of content. Now, if you're a content creator, that means that you have to keep serving up ever more outrageous, ever more infamous, ever more sort of controversial stuff. And I think if there's a sort of flaw in the business model that someone like Carl Stefanovic is picking up for himself, it's that, like, I think you're on a sort of, like you're in a bit of. A. Bit of a death spiral, I think if you're just going for ever more extreme content without any real substance to your interview subjects
- [06:46]
A
after the break.
- [06:47]
B
There's less and less common ground, I think, in our society and in our political debate and less willingness to find the common ground. And I do think that's a big problem.
- [07:04]
A
Your column on the weekend looked at, I guess, the relationship between reaching middle age and the phenomenon we're talking about here. Do you see any connections between figures like Carl Stefanovic, Dave Hughes, and perhaps even Tucker Carlson? You Know, venting their opinions, almost going rogue after careers in mainstream media where they've done pretty well beforehand.
- [07:25]
B
Yeah, I mean, I don't mean to be mean about the male midlife crisis, because women have them, too, but as a friend of mine said to me recently, I'd like to have a midlife crisis, but I still have to make dinner. I don't know if Carl Stefan, I think, has to make dinner. So, yeah, I. Look, I think all of those guys sort of have a common thread, which is, as you say, they've made a lot, you know, commanded enormous kind of contracts and salaries within a mainstream context. You know, commercial television, commercial radio. In the case of Tucker Carlson, he was, you know, he was on Fox News for a long time. I suppose maybe there's a strong ideological sort of fervor there that is like, you know, as Carl Stefanovic says, like, I've always felt really constrained within this kind of straitjacket of news and commercial television, where there's guardrails around what I can say and the kinds of people I can have on, and I don't want that anymore. I mean, you know, let a thousand flowers bloom. Let's, like, go for it. But I do think perhaps there's a level of entitlement there as well, which is that most people, when they take on an employment contract, even if they're a really big star, accept that, particularly within a commercial contract, there are constraints on them. You know, like most employees have constraints on them. The kinds of things they can say, the kinds of things they can do, the kinds of things that might, for example, annoy or irritate a corporate sponsor or any of the stakeholders in that industry. So to think that or to sort of demand that you don't have any of those constraints is, I think, probably very different to how most workers have to show up at work. And I don't think it's necessarily a curtailment of freedom of speech in the traditional sense.
- [09:01]
A
Sure. But at the same time, we live in a democracy, right. And, you know, does Carl Stefanovic have a right to a political opinion here, even if other people find it distasteful? Doesn't he have a right to express it?
- [09:14]
B
Yeah, I mean, of course, within the bounds of the law. I mean, we do obviously prohibit hate speech, which is nothing. I'm not suggesting that Carl Severn ever gets anywhere near that. I suspect Tommy Robinson does, but. Yeah, sure. But I mean, we've seen this before where freedom of speech sort of interacts with an employment contract. You know, we've Seen it with footballers, for example, here in New South Wales and also in Victoria. You see it in various contexts. I mean, we live in the real world. Right. So like, if your freedom of speech is being curtailed by the job that you're in, well, you're very free to leave that job, which is effectively what's happened with Carl Stefanovic. I would say that it's difficult, like with someone like Dave Hughes that you mentioned before, it's like really difficult to see. We've heard a lot from these men over the course of their careers. They've had huge platforms in, you know, commercial like radio contracts and TV contracts and side hustles like podcasts or comedy shows. It's very hard to see how their speech has not been as, as free as it could possibly be. It's been prolific, if not totally free, shall we say?
- [10:17]
A
Yes. All right, well, look, I mean, I guess I'm in that middle aged male category. I'm probably approaching Carl Stefanovic's age. What are some of the warning signs I need to look out for in. In terms of all this? You know, feeling like I'm being silenced or. Yeah, something else.
- [10:34]
B
Yeah, yeah. I don't know. I guess if you shot. Start shouting at your family members over the cornflakes, you know, stop, stop when they. That they've heard that joke before or something.
- [10:43]
A
Stop silencing me that I think that ship has sailed.
- [10:48]
B
I. Look, it's maybe this, this stuff is really hard to disentangle from just the ordinary middle aged grumpiness that comes along. I think that most generations have their strengths and also their weaknesses. And most generations probably struggle on some level to move along or to accept the generation coming up which has a different set of behaviors, attitudes, rules, whatever you like to say. And I find it within myself there are certain things about younger generations, newer ideas that I find confronting or ridiculous even actually. And you know, you can either sort of listen to that reaction and ask yourself what it's telling you about yourself, or you can kind of go with it. And I guess if you're a middle aged man of a certain ilk, you might just go with it and not question it. I don't know. Do you have any thoughts about the Woke mind virus? I mean, have you started talking about that? That's a sign. I think also getting very upset about trans issues is another sign.
- [11:46]
A
Yes.
- [11:47]
B
Yeah, yeah.
- [11:47]
A
Those things don't really excite me that much. What I do think about is whether we have a capacity to argue anymore.
- [11:58]
B
Yeah, this is really important. This is really important. And I think I don't have an answer to that, actually, because I find, you know, I have opinions about things, I feel strongly about certain things, and I try to argue it with, you know, objectivity and balance and so forth. But there are certain subjects that you probably want to avoid with certain people. More and more it would, you know, there are certain. There's less and less common ground, I think, in our society and in our political debate and less willingness to find the common ground. And I do think that's a big problem. I mean, what can we do about it? All we can do is try to be moderate and centrist and to listen to each other. Yeah, yeah.
- [12:39]
A
It's just interesting that the Internet doesn't really reward that kind of behavior. And being able to access this huge reservoir of information, I think instead of broadening our opinions about the world has perhaps pushed us into silos more.
- [12:52]
B
Yeah, I think so, too. And the proliferation of content and facts, as you say, is like, very overwhelming. So you can almost pick your own facts. And also, it means that if you do decide to inform yourself on a subject, you know, you can feel. Sort of end up feeling like, well, I know about this, I've read about this, so who are you to dare to kind of challenge my point of view on this? But of course, people are reading different things. So, look, I think it's really, really difficult. It's kind of like the central political challenge of our time, and we're seeing it play out in the way our politics are going, you know, and it's happening here in Australia as it is around the world.
- [13:29]
A
Just finally, you mentioned before about, you know, sponsors not liking certain opinions that presenters or journalists or whoever it is might express. No one's actually stopping anyone from saying anything. That's not hate speech. Aren't you just talking about consequences?
- [13:45]
B
Yeah, I would say so. I would say so. And particularly like in. In a commercial environment and particularly television, which is so cutthroat and it's so competitive, you're always competing for every single viewer. Really, in terms of the ratings race. Yeah, it's. These decisions are commercial. I mean, you know, if you write a book, like I've written a couple of books, when you write a book, you sign a contract with your publisher and one of the clauses is ill repute clause. And it's like, you know, basically if you do something dastardly, controversial, illegal, I don't know, there's many ways in which you could bring yourself into ill repute, then you forfeit that contract. Like these are. These are sort of very, very normal conditions to sign up for because, as you say, they have commercial consequences.
- [14:27]
A
Thank you so much for joining us today.
- [14:29]
B
Thank you very much for having me, Ben.
- [14:43]
A
In other news today, abuse survivors and their lawyers say the Christian Brothers engaged in a deliberate strategy to shield its assets from lawsuits by transferring the financials of valuable schools in Melbourne and Sydney into trust accounts. Vanuatu has ruled out allowing China to establish a military base on its territory in a $500 million treaty with Australia. And a senior liberal says the party needs a rebrand after twin polls showed the coalition failed to capitalise on a stall in one nation's popularity. You can read more at the age or smh.com Today's episode was produced by Josh Towers. Our executive producer is Tammy Mills. And our podcasts are overseen by Lisa Muxworthy and Tom McKendrick. If you like our show, follow the MORNING EDITION and leave a review for us on Apple or Spotify. Thanks for listening.