Add it all up and take a few summary points from what has been said; what the Australian public think about an issue is then the exact opposite.
What about? He was comparatively fine. The old blokes a shock jock, of course he was going to say something.
Pretty annoying that people are getting all outraged about him and not talking about the great story about those left homeless from the Debbie floods in northern NSW.
Tonight - he is to release a book of his 60 years in radio next Monday. Lawsie … well you wanted to know.
It reprised his appearance from 5 years ago
Leigh announced on the program tonight that a viewer was so moved by the report last night, that the anonymous viewer will pay for 3/4 of the rent for a family of 7 which was considering having to sleep in a tent.
That’s pretty cool! And decent!
As for Laws, I have no problems with what he said. He’s a shock jock - that’s his thing. So the outrage on twitter about what he said on 7.30 is misplaced. Everyone is entitled to a different view, fine - disagree with it - but the fact is that there was a more important story that should have bene given more attention on twitter.
Matt Wordsworth hosted last night’s episode.
Leigh Sales to guest tonight: “it seems we’ve done more interviews re: Trump in the last 6 months than during entire last administration re: Obama”. No self-awareness at all.
I see she engaged in another snarky tit for tat with Plibersek tonight, which lead to Tanya being a little grumpy in her answers at the end.
Looks like Louise Milligan could be hosting 7.30 tonight… About to find out…
Stan Grant filling in for Leigh Sales this week.
I haven’t see him present since real life years ago , so have hope he will do a better job in interviewing guests . (my opinion)
Awfully nice of that reporter to be carrying both a Ten & Nine microphone
Leigh needs to learn how to formulate clear questions that allow an interviewee to respond without being interrupted to be asked constant follow ups.
Apparently the Church is now responsible for domestic violence.
I didn’t watch the whole thing (as like most Australians, I’ve switched off this hyper-left wing programme), but it included once incredibly crass instance of a journalist aggressively asking, in an accusatory manner, a priest how often he had “preached about domestic violence”. As if it was a dereliction of duty not to have.
Why must taxpayers fund 7:30 and the ABC’s far left feminist, anti-Christian agenda? Why? Where is the choice?
The report Christian women told to endure domestic abuse meets the requirements of the ABC’s Editorial Policies in that it used relevant data, relied on good sources and was fair and balanced. The report is not an attack on Christianity but an exploration of its intersection with issues of domestic violence, a legitimate and newsworthy subject.
Blah, blah, blah - just because you say something is so, doesn’t make it so. If that report was fair and balanced, I’m Mickey Mouse.
In fact the best indication that it wasn’t fair and balanced is the fact the ABC has had to argue its case with a public statement.
I mean, an awesome smoking gun for anyone who’s stupid enough to believe the ABC’s BS corporate spin about how this wasn’t “an attack on Christianity”:
We also pointed out that regular church attendance made men less likely to be violent.
Then again “men who go to church are less violent” doesn’t really fit into the “religious nutjob” narrative that the ABC wanted to pursue with this series, did it?