March 16, 2026 • 10 mins
THE BEST BITS IN A SILLIER PACKAGE (from Tuesday's Mike Hosking Breakfast) Anyone? Anyone at All?/Saving the Planet is So Last Century/News That's Not News/More News That's Not News
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:09):
You're listening to a podcast from News Talks. It'd be
follow this and our wide range of podcasts now on iHeartRadio.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
Repay there and welcome to the rewrap for Tuesday, all
the best butts from the mic asking breakfast on Newsdoors.
It'd be in a sillier package Iron Glenheart Today climate policy?
Speaker 3 (00:36):
Are you really still.
Speaker 2 (00:37):
Doing this news that's not news? And then some more
news that also is the news. But before any of that,
the straight of wall news. Boy, are you sick of
looking at that particular face on the map yet?
Speaker 4 (00:49):
It wasn't just Starmri's worried, but he's complaining about everybody.
Speaker 5 (00:52):
Now. Some are very enthusiastic about it, and some are
in summer countries that we've helped for many many years.
We've protected them from horrible outside sources, and they weren't
that enthusiastic. And the level of enthusias of enthusiasm matters
(01:12):
to me. And when we want to know, do you
have any main sweepers, Well, would rather not get involved, sir,
they said, for you man for forty years, we're protecting you,
and you don't want to get involved in something that
is very manor.
Speaker 4 (01:27):
You can feel He's under pressure, can't you. He's sing
the price of oil, he's seeing the polls, He's feeling
under pressure.
Speaker 3 (01:32):
I mean he's in full Biden territory now, isn't he.
Speaker 2 (01:37):
Whatever was wrong with Biden's brain has certainly infected Trump's now.
He claimed that every Iran leader is dead and then
almost immediately went on to saying that he doesn't know
who's in charge of Iran. And that's before you get
to all the cool stuff that he's predicted, you know,
(01:58):
like Carg Island. He knew that that was going to
be important.
Speaker 4 (02:04):
Hag Island. Can I take some credit for this in
a Trump is sort of way. Wasn't me or wasn't
me last whinever it was Wednesday or Thursday on the
program who said watch out for carg Island because it
hasn't been hit. Something's a foot stand by? Sure enough
over the weekend and as.
Speaker 5 (02:22):
You know, we attacked Cargo Island and knocked it, knocked
it literally destroyed everything in the island except for the
area where the oil is I called the pipes. We
left the pipes.
Speaker 1 (02:36):
We didn't want to.
Speaker 5 (02:37):
Do that, but we will do that. We can do that.
On five minutes. Notice, it'll be over, but for purposes
of someday rebuilding that country. I guess we did the
right thing, but it's it may not stay that way.
Just one simple word and the pipes will be gone
to but it'll take a long time to rebuild that.
Speaker 4 (02:58):
I caught it the pipes. He's insani, he is literally mental.
I call it the pipes. I blew it all up.
Speaker 3 (03:07):
Well maybe I didn't, Oh maybe not, but I could.
Speaker 4 (03:11):
This war could be over now it's over, no kidding?
What do you do? Is this an AI generation? Is
this real? Is any of this reel? Are we here?
Speaker 2 (03:28):
Hello?
Speaker 4 (03:29):
Are we here?
Speaker 3 (03:30):
Yep?
Speaker 2 (03:31):
We just needed someone and a fix the pipes, or
we don't need to fix the pipes because that's the
only thing that's not broken.
Speaker 3 (03:36):
Or seriously, what is happening?
Speaker 5 (03:39):
A rewrap?
Speaker 2 (03:40):
So an interesting backdrop to then go on to discuss
you know, obviously we're all obsessed with how important the
oil is. To then discuss climate policy. Does anybody else
see the irony of that?
Speaker 4 (03:51):
It always adds a bit of drama, I think with
the right word added. So we have quote unquote a
landmark legal case in the High Court this week. Climate
advocates will argue the government's current climate plan is unlawful
and that it had not consulted on it widely enough.
They want the ought to declare the government's decisions unlawful.
Under the current law, the government must produce five yearly
(04:13):
emissions reduction targets. It's net zero by twenty fifty. Stuff.
You've heard it all before. By the way, in the
past few years, our omissions are in fact going down,
which I assume pleases someone, not that it appears to
be getting a lot of attention, which is sort of
what this case is all about ideology. I think it's
fair to suggest a lot of the sort of people
that like to spend time in court chasing governments really
(04:33):
are after a plan that not only is questionable around effectiveness,
but almost certainly economically ruinous and more extreme than anyone
would want to live with, bar the sort of people
who take court cases. Of course, like all these cases,
it ultimately goes nowhere. Given the highest court in the
land is the Parliament, and the Parliament has currently got
a group of three parties that have agreed on the
current climate plan and therefore have the votes to enact
(04:54):
what they want. The fact a group of climate activists
doesn't like it is not a surprise, and at best,
I guess you can hope for a friendly court who
decides there has been some sort of misdemeanor. In other words,
technically the government may not have consulted around the changes
they made. Therefore the court might say they should, and
if the government decided that's a good idea, they then
would do that. And it's at that point the climate
(05:15):
activists show up and tell the government it's all wrong
and we're on a path to climate ruin, at which
point the government ignores them because the government is allowed
to do that, and they then enact what they were
doing anyway, because that's how governments work. Either the lawyers
are sympathizers and doing this for free, or the advocates
have benefactors that don't mind footing large legal bills. But
the simple truth is this government has been elected on
(05:35):
the middle of the road path. Our omissions are dropping
land in climate interference for farmers isn't as extreme as
it was, and in broader news, the world has kind
of moved on from this anyway, with larger issues. As
we burn coal like never before, realize oil is quite
important post the war, and before you know it, Cop
thirty one in Turkey will be on to relitigate it
all over again. Anyway. Meantime, the lawyers, as ever will
(05:58):
be in there.
Speaker 2 (05:59):
Yeah, who would have thought there'd be larger issues than
saving the planet.
Speaker 3 (06:05):
How times have changed since you know century?
Speaker 2 (06:09):
The rerap right on to the real news of the day,
or at least what isn't the real news of the day.
Speaker 4 (06:15):
How long can you peddle an invention? There's my question
for your Friday, Friday, March sixth. The poll is out,
it's bad for national and the media has concocted the
idea that, as a result of these numbers in the
previous Monday's press conference about the war, that things have
got so bad for the prime minister he quote is
considering his position over the weekend. They've also concluded numbers
are being crunched, pressure is mounting, and pressure is building
(06:39):
for him to resign by the Monday. On this program
March nine, it is clear no such thing has happened,
No numbers were crunched, and no considering of positions has
been undertaken. Is that the end of the story. No,
it is not. It bubbles on for the rest of
the week, with literally nothing happening apart from the reiteration
of what we already know not to be true. By
Thursday last week, the Herald runs an editorial declaring he
(07:00):
survived the week, survive from what their invention of a problem. Friday,
Peter dunwrite's a piece that caused the media invented nonsense out. Saturday,
Bruce cottle lads TV and said woes to the list,
but also points to the abject absurdity of the previous
Monday's blitzkrig at the airport, as said PM and various
Cabinet members arrive in Wellington to a pack of screeching
journalists still refusing to believe that the story is entirely
(07:21):
of their invention. And then yesterday, March sixteen, ten calendar
days since the invention, Radio and New Zealand were to
have two talking heads discussing how the PM survived the
pressure and the pending consideration of his position. Assuming today
there is no more, surely that has to be a
record for continuing coverage of a pile of bollocks, which
(07:42):
leads to the question, how dangerous are our media when
they invent a story? And run with it, and then,
having had it dispelled, continue to run with it new story,
New week. Thereforementioned PM ahead of his specific trip asked
for a title. Not true, said the PM's office. Still
they ran with it until Monday when the Sarmag government
said it's not true. How many times do you have
(08:03):
to say this story isn't true before it's not a story?
And is it true to say if a story that
isn't true is still as a story, We most definitely
have an agenda here and a bias and a level
of dishonesty. And given that, one do they wonder why
their reputations are in tatters? And two do they even care?
Speaker 5 (08:19):
You know?
Speaker 2 (08:19):
I mean, I guess there's kind of your job to
justify your job, isn't it Like if you're not doing
this kind of story and air quotes, then what are
you doing?
Speaker 5 (08:30):
So rerap?
Speaker 2 (08:31):
And that's before you get to know. My mate last
night texting me and saying, ah, man, this Chris Hopkins
ex wife's stuff. You guys are going to be making
a meal of that Tom aunt Ja and I had
no idea what he was talking about.
Speaker 4 (08:48):
Why you text me about hipcins? What do you want
me to do for God's sake. So the missus goes
on the Facebook and she says some stuff. Now do
you realize when we take Mike media not really holding
power to account, Hipkins wants to lead our country again,
yet on serious allegations of more suitability, everyone is looking
(09:09):
the other way. I don't know, you didn't put your name.
Do you not know the law? People can't go on
things and just say random things that might be illegal
because that's called libel. So if I repeat it the
random things that she says, unless they're true, and I
have no idea whether they're true, I would be sued.
(09:32):
Do you want me to be sued and go to court?
Do you not understand the basic rules of libel in
this country? And then that is the problem. So then
the next question is if you can go on social
media and just say any old random crap you want,
does the media report that knowing they can't say anything
about it, or does the reportage then lead you to
(09:53):
going on to the social media. So then you read
it and then you text me and ask me to
do something about it. What is it you want me
to do about it? Apart from end up in court?
Speaker 2 (10:03):
Seriously, if I can avoid this kind of shit, surely
you can. I mean, I work in the news every
single morning, and yet I go home and I'm blissfully
unaware that any of us carry on on social media.
Speaker 3 (10:18):
Is carrying on on social media? You don't. It's not compulsory, guys,
Stay out of it. I am Glen Hat. It's my
advice for the day. I'll see you back here with
more Sage words of wisdom tomorrow.
Speaker 1 (10:40):
For more from News Talks at b Listen live on
air or online, and keep our shows with you wherever
you go with our podcasts on iHeartRadio.
You're listening to a podcast from News Talks. It'd be
follow this and our wide range of podcasts now on iHeartRadio.
Speaker 2 (00:24):
Repay there and welcome to the rewrap for Tuesday, all
the best butts from the mic asking breakfast on Newsdoors.
It'd be in a sillier package Iron Glenheart Today climate policy?
Speaker 3 (00:36):
Are you really still.
Speaker 2 (00:37):
Doing this news that's not news? And then some more
news that also is the news. But before any of that,
the straight of wall news. Boy, are you sick of
looking at that particular face on the map yet?
Speaker 4 (00:49):
It wasn't just Starmri's worried, but he's complaining about everybody.
Speaker 5 (00:52):
Now. Some are very enthusiastic about it, and some are
in summer countries that we've helped for many many years.
We've protected them from horrible outside sources, and they weren't
that enthusiastic. And the level of enthusias of enthusiasm matters
(01:12):
to me. And when we want to know, do you
have any main sweepers, Well, would rather not get involved, sir,
they said, for you man for forty years, we're protecting you,
and you don't want to get involved in something that
is very manor.
Speaker 4 (01:27):
You can feel He's under pressure, can't you. He's sing
the price of oil, he's seeing the polls, He's feeling
under pressure.
Speaker 3 (01:32):
I mean he's in full Biden territory now, isn't he.
Speaker 2 (01:37):
Whatever was wrong with Biden's brain has certainly infected Trump's now.
He claimed that every Iran leader is dead and then
almost immediately went on to saying that he doesn't know
who's in charge of Iran. And that's before you get
to all the cool stuff that he's predicted, you know,
(01:58):
like Carg Island. He knew that that was going to
be important.
Speaker 4 (02:04):
Hag Island. Can I take some credit for this in
a Trump is sort of way. Wasn't me or wasn't
me last whinever it was Wednesday or Thursday on the
program who said watch out for carg Island because it
hasn't been hit. Something's a foot stand by? Sure enough
over the weekend and as.
Speaker 5 (02:22):
You know, we attacked Cargo Island and knocked it, knocked
it literally destroyed everything in the island except for the
area where the oil is I called the pipes. We
left the pipes.
Speaker 1 (02:36):
We didn't want to.
Speaker 5 (02:37):
Do that, but we will do that. We can do that.
On five minutes. Notice, it'll be over, but for purposes
of someday rebuilding that country. I guess we did the
right thing, but it's it may not stay that way.
Just one simple word and the pipes will be gone
to but it'll take a long time to rebuild that.
Speaker 4 (02:58):
I caught it the pipes. He's insani, he is literally mental.
I call it the pipes. I blew it all up.
Speaker 3 (03:07):
Well maybe I didn't, Oh maybe not, but I could.
Speaker 4 (03:11):
This war could be over now it's over, no kidding?
What do you do? Is this an AI generation? Is
this real? Is any of this reel? Are we here?
Speaker 2 (03:28):
Hello?
Speaker 4 (03:29):
Are we here?
Speaker 3 (03:30):
Yep?
Speaker 2 (03:31):
We just needed someone and a fix the pipes, or
we don't need to fix the pipes because that's the
only thing that's not broken.
Speaker 3 (03:36):
Or seriously, what is happening?
Speaker 5 (03:39):
A rewrap?
Speaker 2 (03:40):
So an interesting backdrop to then go on to discuss
you know, obviously we're all obsessed with how important the
oil is. To then discuss climate policy. Does anybody else
see the irony of that?
Speaker 4 (03:51):
It always adds a bit of drama, I think with
the right word added. So we have quote unquote a
landmark legal case in the High Court this week. Climate
advocates will argue the government's current climate plan is unlawful
and that it had not consulted on it widely enough.
They want the ought to declare the government's decisions unlawful.
Under the current law, the government must produce five yearly
(04:13):
emissions reduction targets. It's net zero by twenty fifty. Stuff.
You've heard it all before. By the way, in the
past few years, our omissions are in fact going down,
which I assume pleases someone, not that it appears to
be getting a lot of attention, which is sort of
what this case is all about ideology. I think it's
fair to suggest a lot of the sort of people
that like to spend time in court chasing governments really
(04:33):
are after a plan that not only is questionable around effectiveness,
but almost certainly economically ruinous and more extreme than anyone
would want to live with, bar the sort of people
who take court cases. Of course, like all these cases,
it ultimately goes nowhere. Given the highest court in the
land is the Parliament, and the Parliament has currently got
a group of three parties that have agreed on the
current climate plan and therefore have the votes to enact
(04:54):
what they want. The fact a group of climate activists
doesn't like it is not a surprise, and at best,
I guess you can hope for a friendly court who
decides there has been some sort of misdemeanor. In other words,
technically the government may not have consulted around the changes
they made. Therefore the court might say they should, and
if the government decided that's a good idea, they then
would do that. And it's at that point the climate
(05:15):
activists show up and tell the government it's all wrong
and we're on a path to climate ruin, at which
point the government ignores them because the government is allowed
to do that, and they then enact what they were
doing anyway, because that's how governments work. Either the lawyers
are sympathizers and doing this for free, or the advocates
have benefactors that don't mind footing large legal bills. But
the simple truth is this government has been elected on
(05:35):
the middle of the road path. Our omissions are dropping
land in climate interference for farmers isn't as extreme as
it was, and in broader news, the world has kind
of moved on from this anyway, with larger issues. As
we burn coal like never before, realize oil is quite
important post the war, and before you know it, Cop
thirty one in Turkey will be on to relitigate it
all over again. Anyway. Meantime, the lawyers, as ever will
(05:58):
be in there.
Speaker 2 (05:59):
Yeah, who would have thought there'd be larger issues than
saving the planet.
Speaker 3 (06:05):
How times have changed since you know century?
Speaker 2 (06:09):
The rerap right on to the real news of the day,
or at least what isn't the real news of the day.
Speaker 4 (06:15):
How long can you peddle an invention? There's my question
for your Friday, Friday, March sixth. The poll is out,
it's bad for national and the media has concocted the
idea that, as a result of these numbers in the
previous Monday's press conference about the war, that things have
got so bad for the prime minister he quote is
considering his position over the weekend. They've also concluded numbers
are being crunched, pressure is mounting, and pressure is building
(06:39):
for him to resign by the Monday. On this program
March nine, it is clear no such thing has happened,
No numbers were crunched, and no considering of positions has
been undertaken. Is that the end of the story. No,
it is not. It bubbles on for the rest of
the week, with literally nothing happening apart from the reiteration
of what we already know not to be true. By
Thursday last week, the Herald runs an editorial declaring he
(07:00):
survived the week, survive from what their invention of a problem. Friday,
Peter dunwrite's a piece that caused the media invented nonsense out. Saturday,
Bruce cottle lads TV and said woes to the list,
but also points to the abject absurdity of the previous
Monday's blitzkrig at the airport, as said PM and various
Cabinet members arrive in Wellington to a pack of screeching
journalists still refusing to believe that the story is entirely
(07:21):
of their invention. And then yesterday, March sixteen, ten calendar
days since the invention, Radio and New Zealand were to
have two talking heads discussing how the PM survived the
pressure and the pending consideration of his position. Assuming today
there is no more, surely that has to be a
record for continuing coverage of a pile of bollocks, which
(07:42):
leads to the question, how dangerous are our media when
they invent a story? And run with it, and then,
having had it dispelled, continue to run with it new story,
New week. Thereforementioned PM ahead of his specific trip asked
for a title. Not true, said the PM's office. Still
they ran with it until Monday when the Sarmag government
said it's not true. How many times do you have
(08:03):
to say this story isn't true before it's not a story?
And is it true to say if a story that
isn't true is still as a story, We most definitely
have an agenda here and a bias and a level
of dishonesty. And given that, one do they wonder why
their reputations are in tatters? And two do they even care?
Speaker 5 (08:19):
You know?
Speaker 2 (08:19):
I mean, I guess there's kind of your job to
justify your job, isn't it Like if you're not doing
this kind of story and air quotes, then what are
you doing?
Speaker 5 (08:30):
So rerap?
Speaker 2 (08:31):
And that's before you get to know. My mate last
night texting me and saying, ah, man, this Chris Hopkins
ex wife's stuff. You guys are going to be making
a meal of that Tom aunt Ja and I had
no idea what he was talking about.
Speaker 4 (08:48):
Why you text me about hipcins? What do you want
me to do for God's sake. So the missus goes
on the Facebook and she says some stuff. Now do
you realize when we take Mike media not really holding
power to account, Hipkins wants to lead our country again,
yet on serious allegations of more suitability, everyone is looking
(09:09):
the other way. I don't know, you didn't put your name.
Do you not know the law? People can't go on
things and just say random things that might be illegal
because that's called libel. So if I repeat it the
random things that she says, unless they're true, and I
have no idea whether they're true, I would be sued.
(09:32):
Do you want me to be sued and go to court?
Do you not understand the basic rules of libel in
this country? And then that is the problem. So then
the next question is if you can go on social
media and just say any old random crap you want,
does the media report that knowing they can't say anything
about it, or does the reportage then lead you to
(09:53):
going on to the social media. So then you read
it and then you text me and ask me to
do something about it. What is it you want me
to do about it? Apart from end up in court?
Speaker 2 (10:03):
Seriously, if I can avoid this kind of shit, surely
you can. I mean, I work in the news every
single morning, and yet I go home and I'm blissfully
unaware that any of us carry on on social media.
Speaker 3 (10:18):
Is carrying on on social media? You don't. It's not compulsory, guys,
Stay out of it. I am Glen Hat. It's my
advice for the day. I'll see you back here with
more Sage words of wisdom tomorrow.
Speaker 1 (10:40):
For more from News Talks at b Listen live on
air or online, and keep our shows with you wherever
you go with our podcasts on iHeartRadio.
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by Audiochuck Media Company.