In this interview Mia Schlicht appeared on The Media Show – Sky News Australia to discuss the IPA’s research on the ABC.
All media appearances posted onto the IPA website are directly related to the promotion and dissemination of IPA research.
Below is a transcript of the interview.
Jack Houghton:
Joining me this week to discuss is Institute of Public Affairs Research fellow Mia Schlicht and Sky News contributor, James Bolt. James, welcome to the show.
James Bolt:
Thank you.
Jack Houghton:
What do you make of all this?
James Bolt:
So for me it’s always a cover-up that kills you. Now, I’m not saying that Albanese lied and misled parliament, but I’m saying he wasn’t completely transparent with this story. And what that’s led to is just this slow drip feed of information, breaking news every day, media updates, constant questions in press conferences, and it’s made what is, look a serious issue far more serious, far more drawn out, and it hurts the government so much more. So it’s just a lesson in media management because for the government to bring back ISIS brides, if they’re doing it’s because at some level they want to do it, but they also know it’s controversial. But if they want to do it, be transparent with us. Tell us why. Why are they coming back? What is the humanitarian reason that they see is the importance of bringing them back. But they’re slow drip feeding and then they’re on the back foot. It’s a bad look for them.
Jack Houghton:
Yeah, well said. Mia, welcome to the show. Great to have you in person. What do you make of this? Do you agree with James that they’ve actually ended up, I guess, damaging themselves more by omitting, by misleading?
Mia Schlicht:
Yeah. Thank you for having me Jack. I completely agree with James here that the cover-up here is the worst of all. I mean, the only way through this is honesty and there’s been plenty of opportunities for the government to be honest and answer some questions. And at every point they have failed to do so. Now we wonder why trust in government is so low and it’s because of things like this. I mean, just a few weeks ago we had Albanese saying that there was no chance that these ISIS brides would be returning here to Australia. And he basically said that this story that was broken in The Australian wasn’t correct. And now the ISIS brides are returning. So what is it? And mainstream Australians are crying out for some honesty and they’re failing to give it.
Jack Houghton:
Yeah, no, well said. Staying on this though, foreign affairs minister Penny Wong has failed to answer basic questions about the ISIS brides saga. She does shed a bit of light though on why the government felt comfortable labelling. The reports false. It comes down to what they define as assistance to these ISIS brides.
Penny Wong:
The government has been clear that we are not providing assistance to repatriate and there is no plan to repatriate these individuals. Public servants, officials acting in accordance with their obligations, I think is a separate matter.
James Paterson:
Okay, so does the Prime Minister or the government consider providing a passport to someone overseas to constitute assistance?
Penny Wong:
I’m sorry?
James Paterson:
Does the government consider providing a passport to someone overseas to be assistance?
Penny Wong:
Again, that’s a matter for DFAT.
Jack Houghton:
James, let’s bring you into this. This is interesting because the Prime Minister’s comments, if you are just the average person watching at home and you’re not trying to decode that the secret messages that the Prime Minister is putting there in his denials, you would have the impression that there were no ISIS brides coming. If you’re saying the reports are false, the substance of the reports were that there were ISIS brides. Instead, what Penny Wong has revealed here is they’re quibbling over the phrase assistance and they’re saying, “Well we didn’t assist.” The only problem is it’s come out that they’ve not only had passports given, there were citizenship tests that were done, there were actual Australian government officers who have actually involved themselves in this situation. And they’re saying that that’s not a form of assistance.
James Bolt:
All right, so this is infuriating to us as members of the media about the lack of transparency, but for the government to be going, okay, well what’s assistance? What is helping brides? Like put yourself in the shoes of Assyrian Christians in this country. Okay, we have a reporter with us at Sky News who did a great article talking to Assyrian Christians who went through hell, I wouldn’t wish on my worst enemy at the hands of ISIS. And they are now in Australia hoping that that part of their life was behind them. And they’re getting these just drip morsels of coded messages as you call them from the government about what the situation is, where they are.
Be honest with the people that are living in fear right now. Where are the brides going? What communities are they being resettled in? What level of oversight from the government are they getting? Because it is just such a slap in the face to a vulnerable community for this … It’s annoying when it’s dancing around a public servant getting hired over another or a jobs for a mate situation. When it’s ISIS brides in the country after what people have gone through in this country, is such a slap in the face to a vulnerable community.
Jack Houghton:
Yeah, no, I agree. Mia, what are your thoughts?
Mia Schlicht:
Yeah, I completely agree with that. I think Senator Penny Wong’s been called out here. I think she thought she was being clever, stonewalling some of these questions-
Jack Houghton:
How brilliant is James Patterson as well? The way that he just prosecutes it-
Mia Schlicht:
James Patterson is fantastic and he keeps going, he keeps going. But the reason he’s doing this is because this is a consistent trend that we’re seeing in these Senate estimates of various other parliamentary inquiries. We have government officials like Senator Penny Wong who think they’re kind of being clever or cute by dancing round questions and giving these non-answers.
Jack Houghton:
It comes off as smug and arrogant, though.
Mia Schlicht:
It does.
Jack Houghton:
I don’t think it’s working in the way that they think it’s working.
Mia Schlicht:
I think you’re exactly right there and mainstream Australians can see right through it. They can see that she doesn’t want to give the answer and a non-answer is just as good as an answer on this issue. So I think it’s time for the government just to be honest about this. Be frank with it. Stop dancing around and playing around with technicalities because Australians feel very strongly about this issue. They want some answers and they deserve to have those answers given to them.
Jack Houghton:
Yeah, definitely. Well said. Moving on now to the ABC and the brand new managing editor, Hugh Marks, who has faced a grilling at Senate estimates, but he came in unprepared and unable to answer basic editorial questions.
Sarah Henderson:
I firstly just wanted to ask, and this goes to Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price’s concerns about some of the ABC’s coverage. Is there any reason why Mr. Stevens is not here?
Hugh Marks:
Senator, I think what I’m trying to do in terms of representation on the panel is ensure that we’ve got the executives that are responsible for the overview of the ABC as opposed to the particular editorial decisions that are made day to day in respect to the ABC. I think between Mr. Fang and myself, we are generally aware of any particular issues that have arisen and should be able to respond to questions that you may have.
Sarah Henderson:
It’s just that there is a statutory requirement on the ABC, on the ABC board to disseminate news and information impartially and factually. So I think it’s called business for the ABC. Mr. Stevens ordinarily does appear and it’s not reasonable to expect yourself as managing director or even Mr. Fang to address all of these issues, particularly when we might be talking about different stories or different coverage.
Jack Houghton:
Marks has a legal responsibility to answer questions at the Senate, but he didn’t get this man, Justin Stevens, the news boss on the panel. And without Stevens who has presided over a litany of editorial failures, we deserve an explanation about Marks was unable to answer even the most basic of questions. He clearly doesn’t even read the news each day because he was completely unaware of this story.
Hamas:
[foreign language].
Jack Houghton:
That footage showed the lead up to a public execution in Gaza hours before Anthony Albanese recognised Palestine as a state. Now the very people running Palestine, the terrorist group, Hamas publicly executed three of its own citizens. It was shocking and gut-wrenching footage that we won’t play in this show. But every good journalist in this country should be aware of the details. It went to the heart of the issue with recognition. But when Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price asked Hugh Marks why the ABC ignored the story, this is what Hugh Marks said.
Hugh Marks:
I think we can be incredibly proud of our coverage. I’m not aware of that particular story. I’m not aware of the decision that was made to cover or not cover that particular issue.
Gavin Fang:
Clearly the coverage of the Australian government’s recognition that the State of Palestine is an important story. I’m not aware of the coverage of the other example that you spoke to. But as the managing director said, we have extensively covered this conflict over the past two years.
Jack Houghton:
Mia, these people are not well-read. They’re running the biggest taxpayer-funded organisation for news in the country and they’re not across stories that just a first-year cadet would be across. So that’s Gavin Fang is involved in the editorial policy and everything, but they’ve kept Justin Stevens out of it. And because of that, they’ve got no idea how to answer any of these questions. And what that means is that the public doesn’t get any answers.
Mia Schlicht:
Yeah, that’s exactly right. I mean the ABC’s ratings are in free fall, people are switching off and it’s because of issues such as this. And you’re right in saying when they’re put to the test, when these questions are put to them, they can’t answer. Now I thought it was interesting that they said that they were proud of their coverage of this issue. And I have no doubt they are very proud-
Jack Houghton:
Proud of the coverage, but they don’t know what the coverage is, but they’re very proud of it.
Mia Schlicht:
Well, I think they’re very, very proud of the message they’ve put out there. Now, they’re certainly not proud of themselves because they’ve upheld any kind of journalistic standards. They’re proud because the ABC sees themselves as influencers of public debate. They think it is their job to drive our public conversations around these issues and it’s not working. That’s why people are switching off because they don’t agree with the ABC’s viewpoints on a lot of these issues. And at the IPA we did some polling and less than one in three Australians thought that the ABC represented their views, which I think is incredibly telling. And I think what will be more telling, will be a great litmus test will be their coverage of this new piece deal that Trump has brought about and to see how they cover this issue.
Jack Houghton:
Oh, it’s going to be such a good point. I mean, they’ll do it with all the sneering comments that they always make when Trump does anything, even though a lot of the American outlets are actually giving him a lot of the praise that he does deserve in this situation.
James Bolt:
Yeah, I saw Penny Wong on our network this morning say, “Donald Trump’s the only leader that could got this over the line.” So I look forward to that also being the ABC’s editorial position, considering how just mainstream it is now.
Jack Houghton:
Yeah, definitely. But back to Hugh Marks, from my point of view, if you are leading this organisation, you’ve got to be across the details. You cannot rock up to a Senate estimates in this situation and say, “I don’t know about three or four or five of the biggest editorial scandals.” It makes me think that he’s not across his brief. I mean he’s definitely not across his brief, but it also makes me think that no one is actually serious about correcting any of these issues.
James Bolt:
Yeah, Jack, I am new to my current role in the online reporter-
Jack Houghton:
You’re doing such a fantastic job.
James Bolt:
Thank you. We got that on camera? Great. But look, I’m new to the role in the online reporters. I’ve been around the scope and I’m new here, but I kind of have a passing idea of what we’re doing. I kind of have a passing idea of what stories our journalists cover. I kind of know what’s going on. For Hugh Marks who was paid a lot more than I am to have those kind of answers for basic editorial large issues, I mean, it’s not just the Hamas, they’re also questioned on why wasn’t Charlie Kirk covered on the 7:30 report, the political assassination of our generation, why they didn’t cover that on &;30 again, same don’t know if we did, don’t know if we did it. So humiliating look for Hugh Marks to be sitting up there with these kind of answers. And the second thing, so you brought up why isn’t Justin Stevens there? I mean they go, okay, we can answer the questions. Clearly you can’t. So why isn’t he there? I mean, was it intentional to not bring him? Is he busy? I’ve got a couple of questions there.
Jack Houghton:
It is an option, a possibility that it was a deliberate strategy to be able to plausibly say that you’re not across it by not keeping him there. But we don’t know. All we know is that the public didn’t get the answers that I do think that we deserved. But moving on now to former Sydney Morning Herald columnist Clementine Ford who has been cancelled de-platformed from social media after publishing a whole bunch of horrific commentary following the assassination of Charlie Kirk.
Clementine Ford:
His most ferocious male fans are super (beep) gay for him. They’re all crying out of their penises in my messages. You’re a (beep), you have no morals. Charlie’s dead. (Beep) off losers. Just remember he died doing what he loved: defending guns, took a bullet for the cause. And according to Charlie Kirk, a few deaths a year from guns is a small price to pay to defend the Second Amendment. So what more could he possibly ask for? It’s a tribute and legacy to the pointlessness of his (beep) life.
Jack Houghton:
She also wrote on Instagram hours after Kirk’s death that, “Almost every freedom you have has been won through political violence.” And she published this in response to Erika Kirk, the widow for forgiving the shooter of her husband.
Clementine Ford:
Young man, I forgive you.
Jack Houghton:
Now it is worth noting that the Sydney Morning Herald has not even covered this issue even though they helped build Clementine Ford’s profile, publishing her for years as a columnist. The Sydney Morning Herald still even has her profile page up where it plugs her as a bestselling author and a feminist commentator and then promotes one of her books. Clementine Ford is a bestselling author, feminist commentator. Her book, Boys Will Be Boys is out now. We asked their media writer Calum Jaspan why he failed to cover it and his response was rather shocking. He said, “It’s not really my remit, I wouldn’t think. I haven’t pitched anything about it. I don’t have a hell of a lot of interest writing about it.” And then my favourite excuse from him, “I didn’t see it to be honest.” He didn’t see the story about their own former columnist defending political violence. That’s one hell of a media writer you have Sydney Morning Herald.
And of course we have Media Watch’s Linton Besser who hasn’t said a word about this despite the fact that the ABC has a dedicated profile for Ford. The ABC says that Ford writes on feminism, pop culture, and social issues when not bra burning and inciting women to radical separatist lesbianism, she can be found yelling at her TV and making pithy jokes on the radio. How charming. She sounds so nice. What a lovely taxpayer funded plug. Do you see how these lefties protect each other though? Media Watch won’t touch this and the Sydney Morning Herald doesn’t seem to be very independent always at all.
Well, Mia, keen to bring you in here. Media Watch, Sydney Morning Herald, they’re very quick to point out conservatives when they fray over what they believe to be acceptable speech. Very keen to do entire investigations and everything. But when it’s one of their own, if it’s someone on the far left talking about creating a paradigm where political violence is essentially accepted or encouraged, you could even take it one interpretation further, they don’t touch it. They leave her profile up, they plug her book. It’s appalling.
Mia Schlicht:
That’s right. I think it even goes further than just protecting her. They platformed her. She was a columnist for the Sydney Morning Herald.
Jack Houghton:
They created her.
Mia Schlicht:
That’s exactly right. They’re the ones who allowed her views to fester and then seep out onto the platform that she has these days. That’s why she has such a big following is because these groups built that base for her. So now to turn a blind eye and kind of say, “That’s not my problem. We’re not interested.” I just think it is appalling. Clementine Ford is an extremely callous individual who she has advocated for violence and they won’t say anything on this issue. And I thought what was interesting is I had a look at some of the articles that Jaspan has felt was in his remit to put out. And quite regularly he thinks it’s noteworthy to comment on the fact that Kyle and Jackie O were saying something vulgar on their radio show, which I mean news flash when are Kyle bad Jackie O not saying something vulgar.
Jack Houghton:
Such a good point.
Mia Schlicht:
But the fact that you had a former columnist who is going out and advocating for violence, you don’t think that is noteworthy of something to commentate on.
Jack Houghton:
He’s telling me on the phone that he hadn’t even seen it. And I find that completely implausible, but maybe it’s true. Who knows with that guy?
James Bolt:
Well, with the Sydney Morning Herald, what I like about it is so Clementine Forward has been kicked off Facebook and Instagram for those videos and she said that she’s going to create her own new app. Now, I don’t know about you guys. I think this is going to be the great disrupting force in media. I think in a couple of years time it’s going to be X, Substack and Clementine Ford’s app for where people get their news. Bizarre to me that the media writer of the Sydney Morning Herald wouldn’t think to cover such a monumental time in Australian media than the creation of this app. I mean, especially when it is a former journalist, wouldn’t you want to give it the leg up? And then for the ABC, like the ABC, they love saying that they’re unbiased, that they’re the superior journalists, they don’t let individual biases get … It’s wrong, they’re humans. All humans are biassed. I’m biassed, everyone’s biassed.
Jack Houghton:
Biassed by omission in this case.
James Bolt:
And it’s just acknowledge the fact that journalists do have bias. Anyone has bias and there is a bias that, I mean, we’re talking about Media Watch here. They ran a segment on the media’s coverage of Keith Urban and Nicole Kidman getting divorced. I mean, huge story, not the same as one of Australia’s most prominent authors saying what she did about Charlie Kirk and getting kicked off X, sorry, kicked off Meta, I would’ve thought.
Jack Houghton:
Yeah, they could even explore the angle of her being de-platformed, whether it’s right, but they just to not touch it, I think is very, very strange. James and Mia, thank you so much for joining me.
This transcript of Mia Schlicht on The Media Show – Sky news Australia from 10 October 2025 has been edited for clarity.
