Government ministers have leapt to the defence of an Australian reporter berated by Donald Trump for asking questions about the US president's personal business dealings.
In criticising the journalist, Donald Trump also confirmed he would soon meet face-to-face with Australian counterpart Anthony Albanese.
"In my opinion you are hurting Australia very much right now," Mr Trump told the ABC's John Lyons while speaking to journalists at the White House.
"Your leader is coming over to see me very soon.
"I'm going to tell him about you. You set a very bad tone."
Mr Lyons, the national broadcaster's Americas editor, had asked the president about whether it was appropriate for a US leader to be "engaged in so much business activity" while in office.
Mr Trump said his children were running his business.
The president did not mention when or where he would meet Mr Albanese, and the federal government has yet to confirm the meeting.
Treasurer Jim Chalmers said the reporter's line of questioning appeared to be a legitimate one.
"I respect the ABC and I respect its independence and that extends to not second-guessing the questions asked legitimately by journalists at press conferences," he told reporters in Brisbane.
"Journalists have a job to do and as far as I can tell that journalist was just doing his job."
Mr Lyons, an award-winning journalist, defended his question.
"Our job as journalists is to ask questions that the average person would be interested in," he told ABC TV.
"The average person in Australia would be interested in 'how is a president becoming so wealthy in office'.
"We asked them politely, respectfully. They were not shouted. They were not abusive."
A social media account linked to the White House said Mr Trump had smacked "down a rude foreign Fake News loser".
Other federal MPs from across the political divide defended the ABC, saying journalists had the right to ask difficult questions.
"Trump is a bully. He thinks he can bully the press and he thinks he can bully Australia," Greens communication spokeswoman Sarah Hanson-Young said in a statement.
She urged Mr Albanese to raise the incident when he sits down with Mr Trump.
Nationals senator Bridget McKenzie said it was "the scoop of the year for the ABC" because it was able to confirm a meeting was forthcoming.
"There's nothing wrong with journalists asking tough questions," she said.
But Liberal senator and former ABC journalist Sarah Henderson said the national broadcaster needed to explain itself.
"At a time when trade, defence and national security are such crucial issues in our relationship with our closest ally, it would be helpful if the ABC could explain this line of questioning," she said on X.
"Australians should expect the highest standards of our publicly funded national broadcaster."
The prime minister is preparing to travel to the US in the coming days for the annual gathering of world leaders at the United Nations General Assembly.
A face-to-face with Mr Trump, either on the sidelines of the UN summit in New York or at the White House in Washington DC, now appears confirmed.
The opposition has repeatedly criticised Mr Albanese for failing to meet with Mr Trump, several months into his second term.
Mr Trump praised Mr Albanese as a "good man" after the two leaders held their fourth one-on-one phone call earlier in September.
TL;DR:
Dibber dobber Donny: Trump tattletales on TV reporter.
Mr Lyons, the national broadcaster's Americas editor, had asked the president about whether it was appropriate for a US leader to be "engaged in so much business activity" while in office.
"Your leader is coming over to see me very soon.
"I'm going to tell him about you. You set a very bad tone."
A social media account linked to the White House said Mr Trump had smacked "down a rude foreign Fake News loser".
Gnugit - 3mon
Now, normally I gag at the thought of reading, let alone posting content from yahoo. I have a throwaway email account that I occasionally check and this caught my eye with it's absolute absurdity.
[ Please don't give yahoo a click. ]
9
Ilandar @lemmy.today - 3mon
You can just read the ABC's article, John Lyons is their journalist after all.
16
Gnugit - 3mon
Thanks for the real news link. It's appreciated.
It still can't beat the title "Dibber dobber Donny: Trump tattletales on TV reporter" though!
3
Almacca - 3mon
I'm sure Albanese will be as milquetoast and ineffective as he usually is. I can't imagine him standing up to Trump and reinforcing the independence of the ABC.
9
Gorgritch_Umie_Killa - 3mon
I'd say in this case milquetoast Albanese is exactly what the nation wants. Lyons can look after himself, he's a capable journo, Albanese has the national interest to think about.
A meeting derailed by a fight over a journo's questions isn't whats wanted by Australia, even if it would be satisfying to see those cunts get a serve. The Australian media should do what only they and the English can do best, satirise what they see, ask reasonable sounding questions with ridiculous premises, satirise them. The Americans in power won't understand it, the rest will have a good giggle.
For example,
A reporter could ask him how fast his new plane from the Qataris is?
Does he think his new plane could outrun Air Force 1?
Would it be crazy to think a race between the two to decide which plane should be the real Air Force 1 would be awesome?
Maybe it could be a race from Greenland to the Panama canal, then up to Ontario? Wow that'd really be something Mr President.
See how far you get, theough it, see how ridiculous you can make the propositions, enjoy how he reacts, there is literally no reaction he can give that wouldn't be funny. And, all the while you're highlighting the extravangances , thoughtlessness and threats this cheezel-dictator has made over the last few months.
10
Almacca - 3mon
Trolling Trump would be pretty funny. It'll never happen though.
6
Gorgritch_Umie_Killa - 3mon
Well, i don't know.
Lyons kinda did, he didn't engage the The Greater-Cheezel's imagination, probably a bit too straight down the line. But Lyons already has an article up about his point that The Greater-Cheezel isn't getting normal journalistic questioning.
I haven't had time to read the article but Lyons must have known how those questions would go and the likely results beforehand, so thats kind of a troll.
Lyons got exactly the response he wanted. He's doing a piece for four corners on Trump exploiting the presidency for family profit. This sound bite will be going straight into his report and he's gotten himself so much free publicity
1
dustycups - 3mon
We will see - its a difficult position to be in & I'm happy with most of his policies.
He had 63 election commitments into the last election. Does anyone know how many got through so far?
TBF the social media laws are fucked & I think we're still waiting for the tax on super over $300m.
5
Tenderizer - 3mon
I have been deeply opposed to the social media laws. Then I went back deleting my posts on another site and noticed I supported such a policy. I understand the reasoning behind it and I just was angry at the prospect of needing to give Google my ID.
However, including YouTube in the ban is beyond ridiculous. May as well ban Netflix and Sky News at that point.
Then there's the new age-checking on porn which is absolutely wild. Firstly it was passed without new legislation, but more importantly it is deeply invasive in how it's to be enforced. I see the reasoning behind this too, but it's as if they're trying to stop even determined users from accessing it and once you get to that level it's crossing a line.
3
dustycups - 3mon
The implementation sounds like a nightmare. Also where does the age checking stop? Whirlpool.net.au? Lemmy?
Having parental controls that work would fix the problem without hassling every adult in the country. Super suss.
4
Tenderizer - 3mon
Yeah, as I understand it it applies to Lemmy too. I forgot about that. If it were up to me I'd definitely only include the big players. I haven't yet processed the fact that Lemmy may go away.
As for parental controls, the issue is that it could create conflict within the family. Kids are going to HAAAAAATE this policy, he wants to be the noble sacrifice (I forgot the exact word for this) so the kids don't hate their parents.
EDIT: Oh also, parents may exempt their kids from this and that's bad because social media is a lot worse than a lot of parents realize. If it were me I'd put kids on a "no interaction" mode where they can only look and not comment or post.
1
dustycups - 3mon
Apart from that I think Albo's great.
1
Ilandar @lemmy.today - 3mon
However, including YouTube in the ban is beyond ridiculous.
The ridiculous thing is that it's not a "ban" at all in the case of some platforms, like YouTube. If you don't need an account to use it, as is the case with YouTube, the legislation achieves nothing. You still get served recommendations via an algorithm whilst signed out, the algorithm still favours engagement (clickbait, outrage, extreme views), the overwhelming majority of content on the platform is not age-gated and can still be viewed by children without an account, etc.
1
Tenderizer - 3mon
I completely forgot YouTube had an algorithm TBH. I use an extension to block all the recommendations.
You're right though, assuming the legislation only bans users with accounts (can't be bothered double checking) that's the worst of both worlds. I guess there would be ways to create a subscription feed without an account and that may be able to circumvent the ban.
EDIT: I can't find one.
1
Ilandar @lemmy.today - 3mon
assuming the legislation only bans users with accounts
It requires the providers of social media platforms that fall under the legislation to take reasonable steps to prevent users under the age of 16 from having an account with the platform (this is very close to the actual wording used). The media's reporting on this has been very lazy and misleading because it's clearly not a complete ban, as has been repeatedly suggested. You can also use TikTok without an account and it will also still continue to provide algorithmic recommendations.
1
Tenderizer - 3mon
THEN THERE'S NO BLOODY POINT.
1
Almacca - 3mon
Oh I definitely think he's been a net positive, and significantly better than the alternative. I just don't think he'll have the guts to call out Trump's bullshit to his face.
The social media laws are appalling, though. You'd expect that nonsense from the likes of Dutton, but I guess all governments are pro-surveillance state when you get down to it.
3
dustycups - 3mon
He did do the barest minimum by not firing Rudd when asked. An outrageous request.
4
Ilandar @lemmy.today - 3mon
He had 63 election commitments into the last election. Does anyone know how many got through so far?
They delivered around 70% in their last term. The Conversation has a policy tracker with all their election promises this time around, too. I'm not sure how many they have delivered so far.
2
𝚝𝚛𝚔 - 3mon
Snitches get stitches, Taco
🔪🌮
6
Embargo @lemmy.zip - 3mon
Does DJT not realise that dobbers kiss robbers?
2
Ghyste @sh.itjust.works - 3mon
He doesn't realize much of anything, really.
5
Taleya - 3mon
I want every single paper now to refer to him as dibber dobber donny. C'moon, let's use those muckrakes for some honest fun now
Gnugit in australianpolitics
Dibber dobber Donny: Trump tattletales on TV reporter
https://au.yahoo.com/news/trump-says-meet-albanese-very-173000725.htmlGovernment ministers have leapt to the defence of an Australian reporter berated by Donald Trump for asking questions about the US president's personal business dealings.
In criticising the journalist, Donald Trump also confirmed he would soon meet face-to-face with Australian counterpart Anthony Albanese.
"In my opinion you are hurting Australia very much right now," Mr Trump told the ABC's John Lyons while speaking to journalists at the White House.
"Your leader is coming over to see me very soon.
"I'm going to tell him about you. You set a very bad tone."
Mr Lyons, the national broadcaster's Americas editor, had asked the president about whether it was appropriate for a US leader to be "engaged in so much business activity" while in office.
Mr Trump said his children were running his business.
The president did not mention when or where he would meet Mr Albanese, and the federal government has yet to confirm the meeting.
Treasurer Jim Chalmers said the reporter's line of questioning appeared to be a legitimate one.
"I respect the ABC and I respect its independence and that extends to not second-guessing the questions asked legitimately by journalists at press conferences," he told reporters in Brisbane.
"Journalists have a job to do and as far as I can tell that journalist was just doing his job."
Mr Lyons, an award-winning journalist, defended his question.
"Our job as journalists is to ask questions that the average person would be interested in," he told ABC TV.
"The average person in Australia would be interested in 'how is a president becoming so wealthy in office'.
"We asked them politely, respectfully. They were not shouted. They were not abusive."
A social media account linked to the White House said Mr Trump had smacked "down a rude foreign Fake News loser".
Other federal MPs from across the political divide defended the ABC, saying journalists had the right to ask difficult questions.
"Trump is a bully. He thinks he can bully the press and he thinks he can bully Australia," Greens communication spokeswoman Sarah Hanson-Young said in a statement.
She urged Mr Albanese to raise the incident when he sits down with Mr Trump.
Nationals senator Bridget McKenzie said it was "the scoop of the year for the ABC" because it was able to confirm a meeting was forthcoming.
"There's nothing wrong with journalists asking tough questions," she said.
But Liberal senator and former ABC journalist Sarah Henderson said the national broadcaster needed to explain itself.
"At a time when trade, defence and national security are such crucial issues in our relationship with our closest ally, it would be helpful if the ABC could explain this line of questioning," she said on X.
"Australians should expect the highest standards of our publicly funded national broadcaster."
The prime minister is preparing to travel to the US in the coming days for the annual gathering of world leaders at the United Nations General Assembly.
A face-to-face with Mr Trump, either on the sidelines of the UN summit in New York or at the White House in Washington DC, now appears confirmed.
The opposition has repeatedly criticised Mr Albanese for failing to meet with Mr Trump, several months into his second term.
Mr Trump praised Mr Albanese as a "good man" after the two leaders held their fourth one-on-one phone call earlier in September.
TL;DR:
Dibber dobber Donny: Trump tattletales on TV reporter.
Mr Lyons, the national broadcaster's Americas editor, had asked the president about whether it was appropriate for a US leader to be "engaged in so much business activity" while in office.
"Your leader is coming over to see me very soon.
"I'm going to tell him about you. You set a very bad tone."
A social media account linked to the White House said Mr Trump had smacked "down a rude foreign Fake News loser".
Now, normally I gag at the thought of reading, let alone posting content from yahoo. I have a throwaway email account that I occasionally check and this caught my eye with it's absolute absurdity.
[ Please don't give yahoo a click. ]
You can just read the ABC's article, John Lyons is their journalist after all.
Thanks for the real news link. It's appreciated.
It still can't beat the title "Dibber dobber Donny: Trump tattletales on TV reporter" though!
I'm sure Albanese will be as milquetoast and ineffective as he usually is. I can't imagine him standing up to Trump and reinforcing the independence of the ABC.
I'd say in this case milquetoast Albanese is exactly what the nation wants. Lyons can look after himself, he's a capable journo, Albanese has the national interest to think about.
A meeting derailed by a fight over a journo's questions isn't whats wanted by Australia, even if it would be satisfying to see those cunts get a serve. The Australian media should do what only they and the English can do best, satirise what they see, ask reasonable sounding questions with ridiculous premises, satirise them. The Americans in power won't understand it, the rest will have a good giggle.
For example,
A reporter could ask him how fast his new plane from the Qataris is?
Does he think his new plane could outrun Air Force 1?
Would it be crazy to think a race between the two to decide which plane should be the real Air Force 1 would be awesome?
Maybe it could be a race from Greenland to the Panama canal, then up to Ontario? Wow that'd really be something Mr President.
See how far you get, theough it, see how ridiculous you can make the propositions, enjoy how he reacts, there is literally no reaction he can give that wouldn't be funny. And, all the while you're highlighting the extravangances , thoughtlessness and threats this cheezel-dictator has made over the last few months.
Trolling Trump would be pretty funny. It'll never happen though.
Well, i don't know.
Lyons kinda did, he didn't engage the The Greater-Cheezel's imagination, probably a bit too straight down the line. But Lyons already has an article up about his point that The Greater-Cheezel isn't getting normal journalistic questioning.
I haven't had time to read the article but Lyons must have known how those questions would go and the likely results beforehand, so thats kind of a troll.
In Donald Trump's America, questions not to the president's liking are met with hostility
Lyons got exactly the response he wanted. He's doing a piece for four corners on Trump exploiting the presidency for family profit. This sound bite will be going straight into his report and he's gotten himself so much free publicity
We will see - its a difficult position to be in & I'm happy with most of his policies.
He had 63 election commitments into the last election. Does anyone know how many got through so far?
TBF the social media laws are fucked & I think we're still waiting for the tax on super over $300m.
I have been deeply opposed to the social media laws. Then I went back deleting my posts on another site and noticed I supported such a policy. I understand the reasoning behind it and I just was angry at the prospect of needing to give Google my ID.
However, including YouTube in the ban is beyond ridiculous. May as well ban Netflix and Sky News at that point.
Then there's the new age-checking on porn which is absolutely wild. Firstly it was passed without new legislation, but more importantly it is deeply invasive in how it's to be enforced. I see the reasoning behind this too, but it's as if they're trying to stop even determined users from accessing it and once you get to that level it's crossing a line.
The implementation sounds like a nightmare. Also where does the age checking stop? Whirlpool.net.au? Lemmy?
Having parental controls that work would fix the problem without hassling every adult in the country. Super suss.
Yeah, as I understand it it applies to Lemmy too. I forgot about that. If it were up to me I'd definitely only include the big players. I haven't yet processed the fact that Lemmy may go away.
As for parental controls, the issue is that it could create conflict within the family. Kids are going to HAAAAAATE this policy, he wants to be the noble sacrifice (I forgot the exact word for this) so the kids don't hate their parents.
EDIT: Oh also, parents may exempt their kids from this and that's bad because social media is a lot worse than a lot of parents realize. If it were me I'd put kids on a "no interaction" mode where they can only look and not comment or post.
Apart from that I think Albo's great.
The ridiculous thing is that it's not a "ban" at all in the case of some platforms, like YouTube. If you don't need an account to use it, as is the case with YouTube, the legislation achieves nothing. You still get served recommendations via an algorithm whilst signed out, the algorithm still favours engagement (clickbait, outrage, extreme views), the overwhelming majority of content on the platform is not age-gated and can still be viewed by children without an account, etc.
I completely forgot YouTube had an algorithm TBH. I use an extension to block all the recommendations.
You're right though, assuming the legislation only bans users with accounts (can't be bothered double checking) that's the worst of both worlds. I guess there would be ways to create a subscription feed without an account and that may be able to circumvent the ban.
EDIT: I can't find one.
It requires the providers of social media platforms that fall under the legislation to take reasonable steps to prevent users under the age of 16 from having an account with the platform (this is very close to the actual wording used). The media's reporting on this has been very lazy and misleading because it's clearly not a complete ban, as has been repeatedly suggested. You can also use TikTok without an account and it will also still continue to provide algorithmic recommendations.
THEN THERE'S NO BLOODY POINT.
Oh I definitely think he's been a net positive, and significantly better than the alternative. I just don't think he'll have the guts to call out Trump's bullshit to his face.
The social media laws are appalling, though. You'd expect that nonsense from the likes of Dutton, but I guess all governments are pro-surveillance state when you get down to it.
He did do the barest minimum by not firing Rudd when asked. An outrageous request.
They delivered around 70% in their last term. The Conversation has a policy tracker with all their election promises this time around, too. I'm not sure how many they have delivered so far.
Snitches get stitches, Taco
🔪🌮
Does DJT not realise that dobbers kiss robbers?
He doesn't realize much of anything, really.
I want every single paper now to refer to him as dibber dobber donny. C'moon, let's use those muckrakes for some honest fun now