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:
Well, joining me this week to discuss is Sky News contributor, James Bolt and the Institute of Public Affairs Research Fellow, Mia Schlicht.
Now James, what do you make of this? It appears to be a decision knowingly to push these two clips together to make it look like Donald Trump was encouraging violence.
James Bolt:
Yeah. It’s tough to look into the soul of someone that I’ve never met, the person put it together. But you can see the process of someone who is so anti-Trump and is so anti what happened on Jan 6. So they go, “Okay, well when Trump spoke, what were the three points that came out of it?” The fact that he wanted people to march on the Capitol, or the fact that he said, “We need to fight like hell?” And then the spliced in footage of Proud Boys marching, which it turns out happened before Trump even spoke. So you can see just someone going, “Okay, well, maybe he didn’t say it in the concurrent, but that was the theme and therefore it’s journalism to say that.” But it’s not what he said and that’s the important thing.
So when any media organisation is found to be reporting stuff or misleading their viewers, it’s a bad thing. But when it’s a taxpayer-funded organisation and you’ve got British taxpayers funding their own misinformation, that’s a next level. So well done to the Telegraph for finding this, well done to them for reporting it. But I think the British people need complete transparency on what else punishment-wise, what else editorial guidelines going forward, what else is going to come from this investigation that’s going to make sure it doesn’t happen again. Because if you’re paying for something, you deserve a better product than misinformation.
Jack Houghton:
Yeah, well said. Mia, welcome back to the show. Let’s bring you in here. The BBC, I mean, does it serve a functional purpose in society anymore, or is it just completely captured by ideology?
Mia Schlicht:
Yeah. Look, very similar to the situation with the ABC here. No, I don’t think it really does serve a person anymore and it’s why people are switching off in droves. It’s why their ratings are in free fall, because people don’t trust what they’re hearing from it. We’ve had situations like this happen time and time again. And so people kind of know what they’re getting from the BBC and the ABC and it’s never the full picture. You never get the full picture from the ABC.
But what really concerns me is not only does the ABC and the BBC spread disinformation themselves, but particularly here with the ABC, they actually position themselves as the arbiters of truth. And we’ve seen that when they established the ABC Fact Check organisation, which was closely aligned with the RMIT one, which you, Jack, did a fantastic job of pointing out the bias of these fact-checkers. But that’s what really concerns me is not only are they contributing to misinformation out there, but they want to control what everyone else is saying as well.
Jack Houghton:
Yeah, such a good point. Well, staying on the BBC, management have reprimanded a presenter for changing a script to say pregnant women rather than pregnant people, which is a dangerous woke trans ideology phrase.
Martine Croxall:
London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine has released research, which says that nearly 600 heat related deaths are expected in the UK. Malcolm Mistry, who is involved in the research, says that the aged pregnant people, women, and those with preexisting health conditions need to take precautions.
Jack Houghton:
So rather than investigating the people who literally doctor vision, the BBC, sorry, went after this woman, Martine Croxall, and look how slippery these activists are. Her own organisation published this story smearing her. Martine Croxall broke rules over pregnant people facial expression, BBC says. That’s right. They say her face portrayed her neutrality on a controversial topic. Let’s bring the panel back in.
James, all of a sudden, it’s controversial to no correct biology and that women can be pregnant. That to me was hilarious that they thought that, that was a controversial point. But imagine if we here at Sky didn’t like something you did and we published a story about you saying we were reprimanding you for rolling your eyes.
James Bolt:
And the most extraordinary part is that BBC article, if you read it, they’ve got two corrections printed down the bottom, so they didn’t even do a good job of sharing their own reporter. There’s so many things that are interesting.
Jack Houghton:
That sound right, I think. Yeah, good to see.
James Bolt:
So many things that are interesting about this. One that 30 complaints were made and then the BBC decided to look into this. Now, I remember when that clip surfaced at the time, the amount of people in favour of this presenter probably outnumbered 30, I would say. From the amount of social media traffic I saw, J. K. Rowling chiming in, it was a big number of people supporting. So I think that’s a wake-up call for the BBC to say, “Hey, the people that pay our salaries, they want their news reported in a certain way and we’re not providing it.” The second thing is, so she said …
Okay. Well, I actually think yes, she is showing her bias when she makes her facial expression, sure. But I think the act of putting in a script, pregnant people, is in itself showing bias on a controversial topic.
Jack Houghton:
Such a good point.
James Bolt:
That is something that we’ve understood about pregnant women for thousands of years.
Jack Houghton:
It’s a position. It’s a position.
James Bolt:
Yeah. You are taking a position when you say pregnant people. So, is the person that brought that script-
Jack Houghton:
She’s actually balancing out an activist position.
James Bolt:
You would think. So is the person who wrote the script also under investigation for taking a one side on a controversial topic?
Jack Houghton:
Such a good point. Mia, the eye roll punishment is so funny to me. I don’t think I’ve ever seen that before, but what do you make of this story?
Mia Schlicht:
Yeah, I don’t think I’ve seen that one before either. But for me, this is really alarming, because it was a health message. And as a woman, this is where I start getting really worried, when this kind of ideology takes over to the point that healthcare messaging to women, the ideology takes priority over that. And that’s where I’m really concerned, but I just want to reiterate James’ point about the kind of support that this BBC presenter got following what she said on TV.
So following what she said, she’s gained about tens of thousands of followers on social media. And finally, people are saying, “Great, we have someone who is speaking in normal terms who is actually saying what we think.” Meanwhile, you’ve got BBC management there who are the ones trying to shut her down. And that’s the same problem we have in the ABC, right?
Where we’ve got people in management who just don’t represent the views of mainstream Australians. So for example, here in the ABC, over the last year, they spent $8.3 million on audience research to try and fix their ratings. Well, I’ll give them some advice for free. Stop shoving this woke ideology down our throats. That’s why we’re turning off because we don’t agree with it and we don’t want to listen to it anymore.
Jack Houghton:
That’s such a good point. I shouldn’t laugh. That’s taxpayer funds that could be going to homeless shelters, et cetera, and they’re asking people what they think of the … It’s so ludicrous.
Well, it’s a really good time then to go to this next story, because the most incompetent man in Australian journalism, ABC News boss, Justin Stevens, who has presided over some of the most unbelievable editorial failures in recent years. Well, he’s getting more cash than ever before from you. Huge pay bump from ABC News director Justin Stevens revealed after scandal-ridden year for broadcaster.
Now, Steven’s total taxpayer funded package is up by $110,000, even though the ABC has stuffed up multiple lawsuits, defamed people, and even faked gunshots over footage of a well-known soldier to make it look like he was shooting at unarmed civilians. The shots sounded as his gun moved over the screen.
Now, it was diabolical editing that Justin Stevens says was no one’s fault really, just an accident. The latest ABC annual report shows that Steven’s package was now $667,000. That’s nearly $700,000 to swan around newsrooms hurting our country with fake narratives.
James, bring you into this story. Justin Stevens, getting paid that sort of money, you would think there would be a degree of accountability that would come with a salary with that much money going to one man whose job is to make sure that the news is abiding by the charter, legally sound, you’re not getting sued, you’re not sacking people illegally like Antoinette Lattouf? You’re not breaking all of these rules. It’s extraordinary that his total package then increases. And just I think the point is $110,000 increase from a package point of view. How many Australians earn less than $110,000?
James Bolt:
Well, that’s the thing. First things is I don’t want to hear it from the ABC.
Jack Houghton:
We don’t have enough money.
James Bolt:
Yeah, give us more money. Because clearly, you’ve got enough money to be-
Jack Houghton:
They’re just not good at spending what they’ve already got.
James Bolt:
So maybe have some look internally. The second thing is, I hope that this pay rise comes with the proviso that Justin Stevens must turn up to Senate estimates. I know we’ve covered this on The Media show before. But in a recent Senate estimates where the ABC to be presented in front of senators to ask questions about ABC News editorial coverage, Justin Stevens was not there. There were so many questions about the coverage of domestic violence in the Northern Territory, for instance, so many other important political issues.
And Justin Stevens is not there to talk about why the ABC didn’t cover Hamas execution at the same time that we recognise Palestinian statehood. They’re the questions that we need. They’re the questions that you would hope that, that much of taxpayer funding is going towards accountability for. And so if he does earn the money, and I’m not going to begrudge anyone earning money, but if you do earn the money, you have to turn off the Senate estimates.
Jack Houghton:
Yeah. Well, I do think of this situation, maybe Hugh Marks didn’t want him there and maybe he’s on the outs and I wouldn’t be surprised if they got someone else to do that job very quickly, because there are so many issues and it is so public, these issues as well. It has damaged the ABC’s reputation. But Mia, let’s bring you in. Yeah, obviously, good on people earning a good wicket. A pity that it’s coming at the expense of news quality and then the taxpayer’s wallet though.
Mia Schlicht:
Yeah. Look, I’m not going to shame anyone for the amount they earned, but I just want to know what his KPIs were here. What was it he meant? Was it poor ratings, fewer viewers, poorer journalistic standards? That’s what we’ve seen achieved here at the ABC and he’s been rewarded for all of that. But to be honest, this makes so much more sense to me because only could a person earning that much money for doing such a poor job could run an organisation like the ABC that is so out of touch with mainstream Australia. It just makes far more sense now.
Jack Houghton:
Yeah. He’d never be able to get a job like that in the private sector, that’s for sure. We’re moving on now to Sydney Sweeney who’s copped a backlash recently from the jealous and insane for doing a genes ad.
Sydney Sweeney:
Jeans are passed down from parents to offspring, often determining traits like hair colour, personality, and even eye colour. My jeans are blue.
American Eagle Ad:
Sydney Sweeney has great jeans.
Jack Houghton:
Critics, mostly people who are aesthetically challenged themselves thought that, that was an act of white supremacy, but the media ate it up. They ran story after story accusing Sweeney of racism, and it was one of the more absurd pylons that I’ve ever seen. Well, this week, GQ sat down with Sweeney and watched the way the journalist squirms while trying to paint the actress as a racist.
Katherine Stoeffel:
The criticism of the content, which was basically that maybe specifically in this political climate, like white people shouldn’t joke about genetic superiority. That was kind of like the criticism, broadly speaking. And since you are talking about this, I just wanted to give you an opportunity to talk about that specifically.
Sydney Sweeney:
I think that when I have an issue that I want to speak about, people will hear.
Jack Houghton:
James, what a way to shut down an awkward question.
James Bolt:
Yeah. Do you remember when the left was fun?
Jack Houghton:
Yeah.
James Bolt:
Do you remember when the-
Jack Houghton:
No.
James Bolt:
Oh, okay. Well, back in the ’90s, back in the ’80s, they actually made jokes. They were counter-cultural, they pushed limits and stuff like that. If you can’t even make a genes ad without it being a, “Well, we need to discuss the sociopolitical economic climate of which this genes ad comes and we need to talk about racial relationships in America.” It’s a genes ad.
Jack Houghton:
You’re right. It’s so puritanical, isn’t it?
James Bolt:
Just like loosen up.
Jack Houghton:
Yeah. These people would have been the old hyper religious type back in the day as well. Mia, let’s bring you in. What do you think about this whole saga?
Mia Schlicht:
Well, I have to jump in and disagree with James. No, I don’t remember a day when the left was fine. I just don’t. But I have to say, I hate this style of interviewing, but she’s sitting there and I’m going to speak softly to you and I’m going to say encouraging words. Meanwhile, I’m calling you a racist. It’s just extraordinary to me.
But what I do remember is when this whole controversy occurred, it was a very small but very vocal group of people coming out trying to cancel Sweeney and they released, they revealed that she is a registered Republican and that was saying we will have to ditch our support for her. And the opposite actually occurred and all these people came forward going, “Great. Not only is she good-looking, but she’s also smart as well. She’s a Republican.”
So it just shows how times are changing and now we’ve got celebrities, even recently Jennifer Lawrence, who’s been a very vocal spokesperson on the left, is saying, “No one wants to hear our political views. It’s not the place for celebrities. We’re going to step back.” So I hope this trend continues of celebrities just sticking to what they do best, but stay out of the politics.
Jack Houghton:
Yeah. Mia, James, thank you so much for joining us. A quick break.
This transcript of Mia Schlicht on The Media Show – Sky news Australia from 7 November 2025 has been edited for clarity.
