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 to discuss this and much more is Sky News afternoon editor, James Bolt, and the Institute of Public Affairs Research Fellow, Mia Schlicht. James, let’s jump right in.
Okay. Anthony Albanese, he does like to appear to be young and hip. He wears rock and roll T-shirts, some a bit contentious ones, he goes off to all the gigs. But this whole thing about the six/seven meme, is he kidding? Is he kidding us? What’s going on here?
James Bolt:
You’re not going to like this. This stuff kind of works. I mean, six/seven, I’m in my thirties, I’m well past the six/seven standards, but the idea, this sounds like a value judgement , but there’s high information voters and there’s low information voters. And the high information voters do need the cost of living policies. They need the energy policies and that’s good.
Jack Houghton:
And the low information voters are Labour voters.
James Bolt:
Well, your words, not mine, but they do just say, and they’re a big cohort, and I love them and they’re great Australians, but really they just take the value judgement of which Prime Minister would I like to have a beer with when it comes to an election. So when Albanese is there in studio, and he’s doing a dance, and he’s connecting to people, and it’s all a bit fun, it works. It just makes him look like a nice guy. But then you get to the six/seven thing and that’s where I go, okay, how much of this was politicians tend to be almost universally unpopular in high school and now you get the chance to sort of be popular again with high school students and that little kid that’s stood in the corner of their classroom that just clicks in and they go, “Okay, I’ve got a chance here.”
Jack Houghton:
But you think there’s an element of genius playing into?
James Bolt:
I just think it’s not for us. Again, I’m in my thirties. It’s not for me, the TikTok dancers, but it is for some people.
Jack Houghton:
He’s speaking to an audience. Mia, let’s bring you in. Love to get your thoughts. You are probably a more appropriate demographic to weigh into the six/seven phenomenon than me. Does this work? Am I just being a grouch? Is this actually very strategic campaigning?
Mia Schlicht:
Look, I’ve got to agree with James on some of those points that yes, I think to a certain extent it can work. I think people want likeable politicians that they can go and have a beer with, but I think there is a threshold there where it gets to a point where it’s too much. And where I think Alba is making some errors here is these little gimmicks we’re seeing, they were very cute and funny at the start, but now it’s almost, it’s too frequent and it’s getting to the point where it crosses that threshold of cute and funny to just cringey. And I think he has crossed that mark now because with him it is all style over substance.
This only works for so long. And then people start saying, “Yes, the video was funny, but what are you doing about my housing? What are you doing about my power bills?” And whilst there are some voters in the younger age bracket who might find this all very funny, they’re not the ones who are struggling with rising energy prices or the rising cost of living. So you are ignoring a massive group of Australians who are genuinely struggling and they’re sitting there going, “Well, while you think this is all very good and funny for you, what about my standard of living?”
Jack Houghton:
Yeah, very, very well said. Moving on, the ABC’s Managing Director, Hugh Marks, he fronted the National Press Club this week to defend the ABC.
Hugh Marks:
I think the comparison of the ABC Four Corners to the BBC Panorama Show was opportunistic. The same faults were not consistent on both programmes. So I didn’t accept that was legitimate criticism and any reasonable amount of work I think would’ve come to that conclusion. So that one I thought was opportunistic and false.
Jack Houghton:
Okay. James, bring you in. This is obviously a reference to the ABC truncating that speech of Trump. The part that they took out was where Donald Trump was saying, “Go down and then praise the senators and the lawmakers.” I cannot see how anybody can make an argument that that’s not changing the meaning. He obviously disagrees. Him and Chris Kenny have been trading barbs back and forth over this. What do you make of his appearance at the Press Club?
James Bolt:
Yeah, so he and I are in lockstep that what the BBC did was disgraceful in that they passed off two comments made 54 minutes apart by Donald Trump as one congruous thought that we need to march down to the Capitol and we’re going to fight like hell. So yes, that is a smoking gun that the BBC really stuffed up.
But what I think is just as big as a smoking gun is that, as you say, the editing of what the ABC did. So the ABC keep in the, we’re going to march down to the Capitol, but they take out the key line that, as you say, is about that we’re doing it to cheer on. But then they put back in what Trump says after that about saying, “Because you need to show strength.” Now, I think saying, “We need to march down to the Capitol because we need to show strength,” is painting Donald Trump to be in a threatening way. I just think that is a threatening statement. If he puts that off as one congruent thought without the fact that you’re going to go down and cheer people, it has that effect of going, “Oh, Trump is really riling up the audience to go be a bit threatening.”
Jack Houghton:
But particularly when Sarah Ferguson, she prefaced all of this by just stating this was her opinion, it’s supposed to be a news report, that he’s unscrupulous demagogue, and I just don’t see how anyone, and Mia, maybe this is a good time to bring you in, but I don’t see how anybody could make an argument that that is down the line journalism that is appropriate for a news report.
Mia Schlicht:
No, of course it’s not appropriate, especially for a taxpayer-funded corporation like the ABC. They actually do have obligations to be unbiased in reporting and they continuously fail to meet that time and time again. But that’s reflected in their rating. This isn’t a shock to anyone. There’s a reason that all their flagship programmes keep going under, and it’s because mainstream Australians do not turn to the ABC if they want to hear unbiased reporting. They don’t turn to the ABC. And that’s what we’re seeing.
And what’s interesting is that at IPA, we did the numbers on this. If you compare in the last 12 months how often ABC has mentioned the IPA compared to an organisation like the Australian Institute, well, the Australian Institute was mentioned 10 more times. The IPA is happy to speak to the ABC if they’ll have us on their platform, but they don’t because they do not host a wide array of views. And any time in the very few instances that we are brought onto the programme, they always preface it with, “Conservative think tank. Right wing leaning think tank.” In some kind of disclosure that you can’t trust what the IPA has to say because we’re labelled as conservative or right wing.
Well, we’ve said time and time again, the more you put those labels on us, the more your viewership will go up because people are tired of the ABC just presenting one opinion. They want to hear views from the other side.
Jack Houghton:
Yeah, it’s such a good point. It’s a fundamental issue that they should think about rather than how many views they get on TikTok. But moving on, the ABC’s quiz show, Hard Quiz, made headlines this week after a shocking anti-Semitic comment by a contestant was laughed off by the host, Tom Gleeson.
Tom Gleeson:
The social network opens with Mark Zuckerberg getting dumped by his girlfriend who tells him that if girls don’t like him, it’s because he’s an asshole not because he’s a what? It’s wide open. For the steal, it’s Mike.
Mike:
Jew?
Tom Gleeson:
Incorrect. It’s still wide open. Quick, someone fill the awkward silence. Time’s up. Nerd.
Yeah.
Jack Houghton:
Yes. It was all hilarious for the ABC’s audience and the host. And to me it speaks volumes about the attitudes held by those employed by the ABC that they allowed this repeat episode to go to air.
Let’s bring the panel back in. James, have to say as well, before we recorded this episode, I went and checked ABC iview and sure enough, this is still live there right now where they’ve made this joke it’s somewhat bad to be Jewish, I guess is the suggestion. And of course it was just met with this raucous laughter.
James Bolt:
Yeah, I mean I can’t… live TV goes wrong, shocking things happen, and people have weird reactions to shocking things, but it’s what people do in the calm of the moment that I think is speaking volumes. And that’s where we really want to bring the focus to the ABC because as you say, this is a repeat episode. It’s now, as we’re speaking right now, it is available on iview. If you, Mia, and I, this is what I’m confused by, if you, Mia, and I wanted to go to a live filming of Hard Quiz tonight, we would be going to see season 11 being filmed, but then this is listed on the ABC website of season 10. So when was this filmed? This is another question I have.
But the point I’m trying to make is there was a decision to go, “This needs to be left in the episode when it’s released.” Or, “This shouldn’t be edited out.” Or, “That this shouldn’t be edited out when it’s online.” And I just think those are the statements you can make in time and you can think about it and you can analyse it. And I want to know why was it left in?
Jack Houghton:
And more to the point, it’s still live on the internet for anyone to see. And so it’s a disgraceful comment from my point of view, but it also shows the attitudes of people at the ABC if they’ve watched this, whatever their vetting process is, Mia, for publishing content to their iview or putting repeats to air, whatever that process is, I’m guessing one person watched it, had a laugh alongside it potentially, and decided this is fine, this is appropriate to broadcast. I mean, we give these people a billion dollars every year to roll content out and this is what we get.
Mia Schlicht:
Yeah. I just thought this was absolutely appalling and I have no doubt that more than one person has watched it and they’ve all deemed that it’s an okay thing to put up on their website in the times we’re living in where social cohesion is at an all-time low. They think this is a funny topic to poke fun at and to get views of. I just think it is outrageous. But what really angers me about this is just the sheer hypocrisy of the ABC in this situation because the ABC holds themselves up as the arbiters of morality, and for years they have been going around and perpetrating cancel culture. And they had said anyone who slightly says something that they deem to be offensive, that person should face a whole wrath of consequences.
But here they have a guest on their show making Jewish jokes saying that it’s somehow a false to be Jewish and they think that is okay. And so they think it’s okay to get cheap laughs off that. So to me, the sheer hypocrisy of the ABC is just on display here and they can’t have their cake and eat it too.
Jack Houghton:
Yep. Well said. If it was another religion, I’m sure they would’ve taken it down, but for that one they’ve decided to leave it up.
Well, moving on, it was good to see Linton Besser from Media Watch touch on the appalling bias of the ABC this week when it comes to issues of transgenderism.
Linton Besser:
But as for that third major criticism that the ABC, like the BBC is failing to report critically on transgender issues, we fear there may indeed be grounds for concern. Because despite some coverage in recent years like this Four Corners about the debate over youth gender care and these online stories, all of which have included criticisms of the gender-affirming approach to care, there have also been significant gaps beginning three years ago with dramatic news that the prominent Tavistock clinic in London was to be shuttered. Despite Australian physicians mirroring some of Tavistock’s gender-affirming approach, this news was not reported by the ABC for three weeks after the event.
Jack Houghton:
Of course, I would go much further than Besser did in my criticism of the ABC’s failure in this regard. But credit where it is due, Australia is lagging behind the world on these issues and the ABC has nearly always reported on the issues of puberty blockers and childhood transitioning with positivity. Of course, we know that there are significant negative health impacts linked to transitioning, including infertility, poor bone density, and many, many other serious issues. The function of journalists in this situation is to scrutinise these practises, particularly when, as Besser pointed out, in the UK there has been a reckoning against gender-affirming approaches to gender dysphoria.
But on the ABC, journalists are activists and they see their role as a promotional vehicle for these very controversial ideas. They have an entire division on social media called ABC Queer, which publishes positive news on this issue constantly. No scrutiny, just advocacy.
James, love to get your thoughts on this very complex issue and I’m glad that Media Watch did it. There was a little quibble at the end where they said, “Well, the Australians suggest people should be sacked over this and we don’t think that that’s appropriate.” So of course they had to put the ABC spin whenever they dare criticise the ABC. But credit to him for actually pointing out that there is a clear editorial problem here when it comes to transgender issues.
James Bolt:
I just think that journalists can find a topic that they care about that becomes just such an issue for them. There’s something so serious, that it can start to put blinkers on. And I think this is a case where it’s all well and good when the pendulum is swinging one way on gender issues and you get to report all the positive coverage. But when the pendulum starts pushing back because of other things they find, it can be inconvenient to either admit you are wrong or to admit that what you thought was hopeful and positive and good might not actually be true. So it’s something that the whole industry reckons with, ABC held up to a high standard, again, because of it’s paid by taxpayer money. They need to be reporting the truth. But it’s good on Media Watch for calling it out.
Jack Houghton:
Yep. Mia, what do you reckon about this?
Mia Schlicht:
Yeah, I have to agree with James here. Finally I’m glad that the ABC is facing some kind of accountability, although it’s much smaller than what other platforms are receiving. But look, this isn’t even just an issue with transgenderism, it is any issue on the left. The ABC, they are not taxpayer-funded journalists, they are taxpayer-funded activists, and that is why their ratings are in free fall.
Jack Houghton:
Well said, Mia, thank you so much for your time. James, thank you for joining us.
This transcript of Mia Schlicht on The Media Report – Sky News Australia from 21 November 2025 has been edited for clarity.
