BREAKING: Gina Rinehart to sue the ABC over vile sketch

Hello and welcome to The Media Show.I'm your host, Jack Houghton.And this week, we saw the bloated, the unaccountable ABC dig its heels in over this segment.

Cos when the revolution comes, will you hide under your bed?Or will you know exactly how?To shove a stick right up Gina Reinhart's butthole, stirring it round, mixing her guts up nice and smooth, making her into one big sausage roll.to make something out of nothing.

And not only does the ABC say that this segment is editorially justifiable, it is using your tax dollars to defend the sick individual who wrote the stick rape sketch.I've never seen this before.The filmmaker is not an ABC employee.Yet the ABC, which has also told Australians that it is internally investigating the segment, published this to its website.Race Around the World contestant Kate McGuinness has asked the ABC to share the following statement on her behalf, which the ABC supports, whatever that means.Goes on to say, this is her quote now, the sense of humour featured in each of my films on Race Around the World program is farcical.

In no way was it my intention to promote violence.My writing is cartoonish and always satirical.Unfortunately, jokes do not land with everyone.Its purpose was never to be taken.Literally, I apologise to anyone I've offended.OK, so it's not the literal rape and murder of Gina Reinhardt.

It's actually some very clever metaphor that you uneducated viewers completely missed.Now, is the metaphor that the downtrodden should rise up against the rich and kill them with sticks?Yeah.Okay.No, we'll get to that.Kate.

That is the call to murder that we are actually a little bit concerned about.But it is any surprise that this person has the IQ of a termite, and her CV, before the ABC hired her, included social media videos like this.Of course, the person who thinks rape and murder is clever satire also mocks soldiers who gave their life for her legal freedom to be satirical in the first place.But there is more to this than just the ABC's failures.Because we know that Managing Director Hugh Marks is impotent.He wastes your money and has no intention to change or be accountable.

The ABC is done and it is only a matter of time before politicians unravel the entire operation and redirect the $1 .3 billion every year elsewhere.I see reform as an inevitability.Be it at the next election or in 10 years, the ABC will either go or look dramatically different.only one side of politics supports it.And they only do so because it helps them politically with sympathetic coverage.The moment that this side loses power, the ABC is finished.

And that's why Labor protects the ABC when it does something which is indefensible.

It worries me and I don't think that is that is right.But what I'm saying is we've got to make sure, you know, either with freedom of speech and satire and the opportunity to hold in particular, you know, political leaders or other well -known figures, of which Gina is..

If I spent all my time weighing in day to day on the scandals and outrages, valid or not, in both sport and communications, I wouldn't have time to do anything substantive.

Freedom of speech.Outrages.And Labor's Jerome Laksau thinks that wanting to murder someone is on par with criticising his party's shoddy economic record.

Labor rightly called out that ditch the witch language that was used against the Victorian Premier recently.Shouldn't this just be a simple apology that the tone is off here?

Look, that's the first time I've seen that and I was just there taken aback a little bit.The language isn't right.And I think you've heard the Prime Minister say this over and over.The language just needs to be toned down a little bit by leaders, by broadcasters, by people on this very channel, Trudy.

Jerome Laxale, everyone.The problem is actually us criticising him for using our tax dollars to make stuff like this.But wait, there's more.What about that censorious lefty Julie Inman Grant from eSafety, who gave a press conference this week literally asking for more powers to stamp out targeted violent abuse online?Surely, surely Julie Inman Grant will find that rape and murder, that segment the ABC produced, she'll find it a little bit problematic.

That would be a matter for the Australian Communications and Media Authority, who is the broadcasting regulator.

And that's why this case is so fascinating to me, because of all the rhetoric you hear about domestic violence, violence against women, respectful discourse online, when a clear problem occurs at the hands of radical leftists.it is ignored or downplayed, or worst of all, it's justified by people like Hugh Marks.The censorious speech framework only binds those on one side of politics.The regulatory body ACMA could not even be bothered responding to questions from our journalists this week until I wrote to its chair Narayda O 'Loughlin demanding an explanation.The hard left has captured these organisations and this case has exposed Labor's so -called progressive pro -women policies as being fraudulent.Well, joining me this week to discuss is executive director of the Samuel Griffith Society, Mia Schlicht, and of course, News24 .

com .au afternoon editor and the host of the James Bolt shows across all of our digital platforms.James Bolt, welcome to the desk.Thank you.Good to be here.Now, let's start with it.

We've we've just heard that Gina Reinhardt is planning to take legal action against the ABC.And this is another case.of the ABC digging its heels in when quite obviously there is something wrong.You can't advocate for somebody to be raped and murdered with a stick.It doesn't matter how clever you think you are with metaphors or satire.

Presumably, our tax dollars are going to be caught up defending this if they continue to dig in their heels.feel that.I'm sorry you feel that way.It literally is what she said.Now I've got to give her some credit because she's done more to show contritionshow regret than the ABC does.

It's still up on their social media and on their website.But it's just, it was a horrible sketch.It wasn't funny.There was no artistic element to it.It shouldn't be defended.It's just, I cannot believe the ABC have dug their heels in so deeply on this.

And Mia, I want to bring you in.Welcome back to the show.I want to get your thoughts on these very senior Labor women and the East Safety Commissioner, Julie Eamon Grant, who normally would call something like this out.I thought it would be a no brainer.Surely they would just say this is this is horrible and this should be taken down.What do you make of them refusing to weigh into this issue?

Well, it's completely just exposed, Jack, the hypocrisy of Labor, but particularly women in Labor.And I will point out, when you look at Julie Inman Grant's record of other things she has censored and chosen to take down from the Internet because she's deemed it to be offensive or harmful, it's quite shocking that she's not deeming this particular sketch to be harmful.I mean, I think there was a post some time ago with a concerned parent putting out a tweet about the amount of trans ideology that was being taught to her child in school.And Julie Inman -Gryan decided that that needed to be censored, and she took that down.So, to me, this just speaks volumes, that not only are we refusing to take it down, but that everyone is digging their heels in and justifying it.And what I think is really, really interesting is this is the first time that we've seen the left use this response, this rebuttal of, oh, well, it's fine that it was offensive and it was probably inciting violence, because we found it funny.

Now, I know you and I can agree, and I think James can agree as well, that no one above the humor of maybe a three -year -old boy would find this kind of humor funny.But as far as I'm aware, when Labor was pushing through their various hate speech regulations or other regulations,limiting freedom of speech, never did they in that legislation scope out any exceptions for someone finding something funny.But here in this case, because the author thought this was humorous and satirical, this one gets a free pass.And I think that really does just expose that Labor is a party without principles.The ABC is a platform without principles.

And they've completely gone the wrong way here.

I agree.And James, there are a few things worse than having a legal framework which disproportionately punishes one subset.And I think that's what this has exposed.You can set up the rules and the law and the regulatory framework from ACMA however you want.But if Action is only taken against one side of politics.That's a really bad system to have set up.

The other thing is, Mia's right.It's hilarious to have people suddenly talking about nuance and satire and freedom of speech.I never thought I would have a hardened lefty defend something like this as freedom of speech.How can they do that?And then the next time somebody on the right steps a little bit out of the orthodoxy into an area where they probably shouldn't, how can they have any integrity to prosecute an argument against that?

Yeah, let's do things there.Can you imagine if a conservative did this?And I kind of feel that when you say something like that, there's the idea that conservatives would say stuff like that if there was a level playing field.They wouldn't.Like, you know, the ABC, that was a contestant that was flying to Scotland.They shot the video back.

It was presented in front of a panel of judges and critiqued, cut up, broadcasted, uploaded to the website.Thinking of News24 as the ABC's antithesis, at any step of that, if anyone got a hint that some left -wing figure is not even political, you know, I know Julia Gillard's political, but not in a current role, if someone said something like that about Julia Gillard, it would have been cut out a while ago.If one of our guys did that, we'd sack them on the spot.

Exactly.We would sack them on the spot.It wouldn't even be a second thought.It would be that's inappropriate.You're clearly advocating violence.It doesn't matter if you're right or left.

Exactly.The fact that they're not looking at this objectively is just astounding.

The second thing is that, you know, it is very interesting that when a left wing person makes those sort of comments, it's satire, it's funny, get with the times boomer.But if a right wing person says It's a mask -off moment that really reveals the true nature of that entire movement.Step back and look at the political world right now, okay?We've had Ann Whitacombe horrifically murdered.We have had multiple assassination attempts on Donald Trump.We have had a scourge of left -wing political violence.

I mean, the murder of the CEO of Allied Healthcare, presumably done by a left -wing activist.This has got to be an all -of -left moment to just go, this kind of rhetoric, like, you know, we can say, oh, it's satire, it's humour.No, people are listening, people are taking up the offer to be violent and we've got to cut it out from our own system.

They're listening to your defence as well.I mean, that's the other thing, the justification for Hugh Marks to say it's editorially justified.You've created this entire subset where this level of speech is justified.They're directly saying it's justified under a humour defence, essentially.Anyway, look, there's plenty of stories to get to, so let's move on.I want to talk about Jacinta Allen and the coup against her, but first of all, her performance at these press conferences.

I want to play a little bit of a clip up of some of her best moments engaging with our media.

I'll make two points on this, and can I ask that you retract that last point?No, no, no, you're not.Could I ask that you retract that last comment?For this press conference to continue, I ask that you retract that last observation.No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.No, it is not.

And I would ask you to retract it.to rephrase your question because, no, no, no, I'm not going to stand here and take questions on integrity.Rachel, are you giving an example or providing a proposition?We should come to all of these debates and discussions in a responsible way.One that does not put reckless misinformation into the public debate that causes harm.If you can let me finish, Rachel.

If you can let me, Rachel.Rachel, if you can let me finish.Your question shows grave disrespect to the treasurer who is representing the government here today.I don't think you would make that comment about other treasurers.

Mia, I want to bring you in here.A very frosty saga that we've had with her at the helm.What did you make of the resignation?though.What did you make of the tears, the reference to her womanhood?Do you think there'll be any sympathy for somebody that has been so ferocious their entire political career?

Do you think the tears will help soften that image and have any kind of sympathetic legacy?

Look, I think it's an interesting one, Jack, and I think playing that compilation and then putting it side by side with the speech she gave during her resignation really does just symbolise why it was time for her to step down, because, first of all, in her speech about the resignation, it was all about herself.At no point there could she admit that Labor had got things wrong in the past or that there was a way to go to build back the trust with Victorians.I think that's exactly why you can see that Labor's polling numbers in Victoria have plummeted, because they really have lost that trust, particularly with their base.And then looking at the way she used to treat the media, this is exactly why that trust has fallen.There seems to be this trend at the moment with politicians in Australia but also around the world showing this hostility with the media.We've seen it with Pauline Hanson a few times, with Trump a few times.

But the difference is with those individuals, it works because there is a sense amongst viewers that the media class does have a bias.And so you have these figures on the centre -right who are challenging those views.But why it didn't work with Jacinta Rowland is particularly here in Victoria, there is a sense amongst Victorians, the media class was on Labor's side, particularly after the COVID -19 pandemic where most of the media class failed to hold Daniel Andrews and the Labor Party to account.So there was this idea that the media was on their side.So when you see Jacinta Rowland being so hostile with them and refusing to answer pretty basic questions, it really just added to this sense that there is no accountability because if she can't even answer to a side that is there to support her and who has lifted her side up many times in the past, then there is no hope of accountability at all.

Well said.James, your thoughts?What you just saw in that clip is someone with all of the Daniel Andrews mannerisms, but absolutely none of the authority.And I think that's ultimately how Jessyn Allen's going to be remembered.It's like some sort of, you know, the lead singer left the band, the band tried to keep making music and it just never worked the same.And it's unbelievable to me how little media scrutiny she would get when she treats the journalists like Do it, like stand up for yourself, stand up for your colleagues, ask harder questions, and just don't put up with being treated like that.

The retraction.

was hilarious.Retract the question.That is potentially the favourite moment.

As if you're in a court.Like, no, this is an open press conference.

It was the weirdest thing.As if people don't have video access and they can't watch it forever.What does that achieve?It was this very aggressive, threatening way.You just kind of...She took off the mask a little bit, you know, from my point of view.

Anyway, I want to play a grab from Raf Epstein, who talks about the coup.

Can you forgive a coup if it fails or it succeeds?Cowards is the word that's been used to describe the plotters.Could you forgive a coup?Getting texts like this, I think they call it rats up a sinking ship.I do want to know if you would forgive a coup.Someone, Kirsty's texted this, no to coups.

What a gift to the LNP and One Nation.

Mia, let's bring you in.What do you make of that segment?Was it a coup and is the coup defensible?

Well, I think that's just more evidence of, Jack, what I was just talking about, about many of the media being in Jacinta Rallon's pocket and her team's pocket to call this a coup.Look, there's no doubt, yes, she was stabbed in the back.That's pretty clear.But I think it was justifiable.There was no way that Jacinta Rallon could take Labor to the next election in November and it be a coup.in some way positive result.

However, I will say the problem is, is as I was talking about before with this brand of trust and authenticity and accountability with the base here in Victoria, you've now got the guy standing up there who is now calling for integrity in the party, the same guy who was standing next to Jacinta Allen a month ago and was using his daughter as a shield to say, I will never roll you and I will not stab you in the back, and then went back and did the exact same thing a month later.So is he the right guy to fix this?that brand image in that particular area, I'm not sure, but I guess it's a long way until the November election and anything can happen here in Victoria.

They're shocking at press conferences, James.I agree with Mia about the coup being self -inflicted and owed and earned.But if you're a voter in Victoria, wouldn't you have wanted to be able to send her off?They're kind of they're taking that away from voters, you know, and that's where it's a bit sneaky.A couple of months, you could have just let Victorians decide.But they've taken that away and tried to give it a bit of a facelift.

and that's why I so I don't like the coup for a very different reason that Raph Epstein doesn't like the coup.I wanted to do the backstabbing.

Yeah let me coup.Yeah I love the idea that Ben Carroll gets out there he's like hey I'm not Daniel Andrews I'm not Jacinta Allen.If you look slightly to the left in any single Jacinta Allen press conference you see Ben Carroll like this is the same government and I also love like Raph Epstein there he both recognised that it's a coup and Rath's leaving a sinking ship.So it can't be both things.Like, it can't be a really well -oiled machine that the military junta has taken over and also a sinking ship that RAFs need to commandeer.Like, it's got to be one.

Well said.