November 10, 2025 • 16 mins
Tributes have flown in – from the likes of actor Russell Crowe and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese – for John Laws, the polarising broadcaster who died over the weekend at 90.
But, it has to be asked: why are we still talking about him, decades after his peak, when he played a key role in helping prime ministers either nab, or keep their hold on power?
Today, Dr Denis Muller, a former journalist and media ethicist from the University of Melbourne, on the mixed legacy of the so-called “voice of the people”.
Subscribe to The Age & SMH: https://subscribe.smh.com.au/
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
S1 (00:02):
From the newsrooms of the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age.
This is the morning edition. I'm Samantha Cylinder Morris. It's Tuesday,
November 11th. Tributes have flown in from the likes of
actor Russell Crowe and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese. For John Laws,
the polarising broadcaster who died over the weekend at 90.
(00:26):
But it has to be asked why are we still
talking about him? Decades after his peak, when he played
a key role in helping prime ministers either NAB or
keep their hold on power? Today, Denis Muller, a former
journalist and media ethicist from the University of Melbourne, on
the mixed legacy of the so-called voice of the people.
(00:49):
First up, can you just begin by telling us who
John Laws was and the scale of his influence?
S2 (00:55):
He was a broadcaster who started life in Bendigo in
country Victoria Earlier in 1953, and he was broadcasting right
through until last year, 2024. So it was an extraordinary career.
And he was, I think, one of the most influential,
(01:15):
commercially successful, but at the same time polarizing figures in
the history of Australian broadcasting.
S3 (01:22):
Well over a million Australians tune into his radio program
every day. John Laws, about the government. I don't like it.
What would you say?
S4 (01:30):
Well, why did you vote for it? Idiots.
S3 (01:32):
He's also been called arrogant, opinionated, opportunist, etc. the point.
S4 (01:37):
That you've made to the Prime Minister as you believe
that he is allowing public funds to be wasted in
the form of claim letters from Post Office, box 200, Edgecliff.
S5 (01:46):
I've had a change of heart.
S4 (01:47):
I don't give a stuff what you've had. You've mealy
mouthed old bastard. You wrote me this abusive letter. You
wrote me this dreadfully abusive letter. And then you ring
up and say you've had a change of heart. I
don't care what you've had a change of. Go away.
S2 (01:58):
He was a pioneer in talkback radio because up until 1967,
it had been against the law to broadcast telephone conversations
on the air. And then the broadcasting regulations were changed.
And what happened then, when it was legal to put
(02:19):
telephone conversations on the air? That was the start of
talkback radio. And he was a pioneer.
S4 (02:27):
And talk radio replaced the back fence. And that's why
people started to articulate and want to talk and talk
about their worries to me, instead of the person next door.
S1 (02:40):
That's fascinating. And just with regards to, I guess, how
influential he was, you know, we know that his interviews
with political leaders, both federal and state, are part of
political folklore. So let's get into that just a little bit,
because many listeners will know that former Prime Minister Paul
Keating once said, if you educate John Laws, you educate
Middle Australia. So what did he mean by that?
S2 (03:03):
He meant that John Laws, because of his national reach,
his program was syndicated out of Sydney all over the countryside,
but particularly because he had a very strong following in
western Sydney. Now, western Sydney is a sprawling area of
on the whole middle to lower middle class, working class people.
(03:27):
It contains a lot of marginal federal electorates then as now,
and laws had a tremendously strong following in this area
in particular. And so it was important for politicians of
all colours and stripes. So Keating, certainly, John Howard was
(03:48):
another one, were very anxious to get on the laws
program because they understood that laws had a particular genius
for communicating with this particular segment of the population, because
he had a reputation of telling it straight, telling it
as it was. And so this credibility was a very
important political asset for laws to have. And it meant
(04:12):
that the Keatings in the house of this world, in
a sense, could borrow some of that credibility through using
laws zero zero.
S4 (04:22):
With me in the studio, the Prime Minister of Australia,
Paul Keating. Good morning and welcome.
S3 (04:25):
Good morning.
S4 (04:26):
John. A bit of fog in Canberra was there.
S2 (04:28):
And so that is why Keating said forget the press
gallery in Canberra. Educate John Laws and to educate Australia.
S4 (04:37):
On the subject of Mabo over the week and a
bit that I've been back, I've done my best to
explain it as I see it, but still some hysteria
exists and a lot of Australians would like to talk
to the Prime Minister. Here's your opportunity. Hello? Hello, are
you there, John? Yeah, right. Okay, now you go right ahead.
The Prime Minister is here listening to you.
S5 (04:53):
Now, I don't know whether I'm limited to a question
or not, Mr. Keating, but I.
S6 (04:57):
Well, I'd love for you to take us through one particular.
S1 (05:00):
Informative incident which illustrates this. And this is what was dubbed,
at least in political circles, the John Law's election of 1983.
And that's when the Labour Party, led by Bob Hawke,
defeated Malcolm Fraser's coalition. So what happened?
S2 (05:15):
Well, what happened was that because of this recognition of
Lhasa's influence, Bob Hawke, Paul Keating, Malcolm Fraser, they were
all keen to get on the law's program and they
were making policy announcements on the law's program. It was
on the law's program that Keating first used the phrase
(05:37):
the Banana Republic, when he was talking about the risks
of the Australian economy becoming a third world economy. It
was on the law's program that Malcolm Fraser made a statement,
which was to go into folklore in Australia, that if
labor won the 1983 election, people would be safer keeping
their money under the bed. And of course, the immediate
(05:59):
riposte to that from Bob Hawke was. Well, hang on
a second. There's no room under the bed. That's where
the reds all are. And that had been. That was
a reference to Reds and the Reds under the Bed slogan,
which had been part of Australian politics by then for
a quarter of a century.
S1 (06:15):
Referring to communists, obviously.
S2 (06:17):
Of course, referring to communists. And so, um, you can
see that that leading politicians were were keen to be
on the program and on the program, of course, they
had to make it worth John Lawson's while to have them.
So they would use the laws program to make these
major campaign announcements as a kind of reward. Um, for
(06:39):
John Laws having them on. And of course, at the
same time to reach this crucial constituency.
S6 (06:45):
Very interesting.
S1 (06:47):
But we have to talk about, of course, the famous
cash for comment affair, because no discussion about John Laws
would be complete without this. So take us through it.
Take us. It was a massive controversy, of course.
S2 (06:58):
Yes, it was in 99. The ABC TV program Media
Watch broadcast an item alleging that the Australian Bankers Association
had struck a deal with laws under which laws would
eliminate from his program negative comment about the banks in
return for money.
S4 (07:19):
He became the bank's most prominent apologist. You know, we
do forget sometimes when we criticise them that banks are
made up of people. So there you are.
S2 (07:29):
Now, what had been going on before that was that characteristically,
laws had taken the part of these ordinary working people
to whom he was broadcasting against the banks. The banks
were being accused of greed and so on, and laws
was taking them on. And the the banking industry became
alarmed by this. They understood how influential laws could be.
(07:52):
And so they went to him and said, look, can
you just stop being negative and start being positive about
us and we'll pay you some money. And so in
place of all the negative comment that had been going on,
laws switched to positive comment. But he never revealed to
his listeners that in fact, he was being paid to
(08:13):
say these things.
S4 (08:14):
Remember the alleged cash for comment? Garbage that went on?
You know I'm going to die with that. Even though
all I was accused of was being excessively loyal to
my to my sponsors. And I'm rather proud of that.
S2 (08:29):
And it was a very successful strategy for the banking
industry and other industries saw how successful it could be.
So the trucking industry, the one of the casinos in Sydney, Telstra,
a whole lot of big corporations used the same strategy.
They went to laws and said, you say nice things
about us as if it were your own personal, honest
(08:52):
opinion and we'll pay you for it. But you don't
declare to your listeners that you're being paid. So it
became known as cash for comments. He wasn't the only
one involved. There were others as well. Findings were made
against him by the broadcasting regulator. He was in trouble
with the broadcasting authorities on and off. Basically all his career.
(09:15):
But he went on as before. Basically.
S1 (09:20):
We'll be right back. And that wasn't his only stoush, though, right?
Dennis with the broadcasting regulators. I'm just thinking about how
this might speak to how credible a journalist John Laws
actually was.
S2 (09:36):
Yeah. Well, in November 2004, he and another two presenters,
another Sydney presenter, were found guilty of breaking homosexual vilification
laws after they had had an on air discussion about
a gay couple that were appearing on reality TV. And
they called the couple a pair of young poofs. Well,
(09:56):
of course, that's gross. And it was a breach of
the homosexual vilification laws. Um, he was in trouble because
later in his career, a woman rang up to complain
about him and basically, um, uh, to criticize him. And, um,
(10:17):
he told her, say something constructive, like, you're going to
kill yourself. And the ACMA, the Broadcasting Authority, uh, rebuked
him and and SM to SM, the station he broadcasted on.
He asked the woman caller who said she'd been a
victim of sexual abuse, whether she'd been provocative. I mean,
that sort of stuff, uh, is unconscionable. And it was
(10:41):
the it was the ugly side of John Laws. Yes.
He was a a hero to a lot of people. Uh,
because he spoke up, he spoke to power on their behalf.
But then there was this, this ugly side as well.
S1 (10:54):
And so I have to ask, I mean, did he
remain anything of a notable force in broadcasting or radio
after these scandals? And if he did, can you maybe
walk us through why? That is because I would have
thought those breaches, they so fundamentally break the trust between
a journalist and the audience they're reporting for, like they
would bring any journalist down. You would think. So what
impact did they have on him or his standing?
S2 (11:15):
A couple of things to say about that, Sam. One
is laws himself, uh, basically disowned the idea that he
was a journalist. He said, I'm an entertainer. Well, he
can say that, but that doesn't get him off the hook,
does it? The real problem is that the media accountability
(11:37):
arrangements in Australia are extremely weak. The Australian Communications and
Media Authority, which is the broadcasting regulator, in fact co-regulates
with the broadcast industry. So it actually regulates in partnership
with the industry. It's meant to be independently regulating. And
even though it's got enormous powers, it can cancel broadcast licenses.
(11:59):
The problem really is that if they exercise those powers,
they'll be in serious trouble with any government of the day.
Doesn't matter whether it's labor or coalition, because the governments
do not want to get media moguls offside and you
try cancelling, um, Kerry Stokes's broadcasting licence, you try cancelling
(12:21):
Channel Nine's broadcast licence, and you'll find yourself pretty quickly
in the Prime Minister's office being told to get a grip.
So they basically resort to rebukes. They send the offenders memoranda.
They enter into what they are happy to call educative
conversations with the broadcasters. None of these make a blind
(12:44):
bit of difference. So that is the fundamental problem. You
can have enormously strong powers, but in the area of media,
if you use those very strong powers, you'll be in
a lot of political trouble.
S1 (12:58):
And I guess, just to wrap up, what sort of
legacy do you think John Laws leaves behind with regards
to the Australian media and particularly talkback radio?
S2 (13:07):
Oh, he set the template for it. There's no question,
because he was not only a pioneer, but that particular
combination of, well, strength of voice, his vulgarity. You know,
there's a curious part of human nature that sort of
enjoys listening to other people being bullied or being taken down,
(13:28):
and that was his style. And I think that that
style is, in a sense, created a template, particularly for
talkback radio in Sydney, the so-called Sydney shock jock phenomenon.
And I think that has been a lasting legacy because
we continue to see it going on today.
S1 (13:46):
So I would have thought that's something of a vexed legacy, though,
isn't it? I mean, here we've got, you know, some
of the most famous people in the world, including actor
Russell Crowe. You know, he has said he remembers John
Laws as a mischievous mate and a very good friend.
They were famously neighbours at the very luxurious Woolloomooloo Wharf
here in Sydney. And yet he essentially is leaving behind
a legacy of bullying people for, you know, incredibly lucrative
(14:10):
incomes on the radio. I mean, that's quite horrible, isn't it?
S2 (14:14):
Well, it's a mixed legacy because when you think back
to the important part he was playing in giving a
platform to our leading politicians during election campaigns, that's a
contribution to democracy. That's good. He certainly did speak up
for the for the powerless in the face of bullying
from government agencies and big corporations and so on. But
(14:35):
then there was always this other side. There was this
ugly side. And so it's a mixed legacy, and it
will be with us, I think, for quite a while
to come. Although, of course, I don't think we're ever
going to see a concentration of power in one broadcaster
of the kind we saw with laws, simply because today
(14:57):
the media communications spectrum is so fragmented.
S1 (15:02):
Well, thank you so much, Dennis, for your time.
S2 (15:05):
Been a pleasure, Sam.
S1 (15:18):
Today's episode of The Morning Edition was produced by Julia Carcasole.
Our executive producer is Tammy Mills. Tom McKendrick is our
head of audio. To listen to our episodes as soon
as they drop, follow the Morning Edition on Apple, Spotify,
or wherever you listen to podcasts. Our newsrooms are powered
by subscriptions, so to support independent journalism, visit the page
(15:41):
or smh.com.au. Subscribe and to stay up to date, sign
up to our Morning Edition newsletter to receive a summary
of the day's most important news in your inbox every morning.
Links are in the show. Notes. I'm Samantha Selinger. Morris.
Thanks for listening.
From the newsrooms of the Sydney Morning Herald and The Age.
This is the morning edition. I'm Samantha Cylinder Morris. It's Tuesday,
November 11th. Tributes have flown in from the likes of
actor Russell Crowe and Prime Minister Anthony Albanese. For John Laws,
the polarising broadcaster who died over the weekend at 90.
(00:26):
But it has to be asked why are we still
talking about him? Decades after his peak, when he played
a key role in helping prime ministers either NAB or
keep their hold on power? Today, Denis Muller, a former
journalist and media ethicist from the University of Melbourne, on
the mixed legacy of the so-called voice of the people.
(00:49):
First up, can you just begin by telling us who
John Laws was and the scale of his influence?
S2 (00:55):
He was a broadcaster who started life in Bendigo in
country Victoria Earlier in 1953, and he was broadcasting right
through until last year, 2024. So it was an extraordinary career.
And he was, I think, one of the most influential,
(01:15):
commercially successful, but at the same time polarizing figures in
the history of Australian broadcasting.
S3 (01:22):
Well over a million Australians tune into his radio program
every day. John Laws, about the government. I don't like it.
What would you say?
S4 (01:30):
Well, why did you vote for it? Idiots.
S3 (01:32):
He's also been called arrogant, opinionated, opportunist, etc. the point.
S4 (01:37):
That you've made to the Prime Minister as you believe
that he is allowing public funds to be wasted in
the form of claim letters from Post Office, box 200, Edgecliff.
S5 (01:46):
I've had a change of heart.
S4 (01:47):
I don't give a stuff what you've had. You've mealy
mouthed old bastard. You wrote me this abusive letter. You
wrote me this dreadfully abusive letter. And then you ring
up and say you've had a change of heart. I
don't care what you've had a change of. Go away.
S2 (01:58):
He was a pioneer in talkback radio because up until 1967,
it had been against the law to broadcast telephone conversations
on the air. And then the broadcasting regulations were changed.
And what happened then, when it was legal to put
(02:19):
telephone conversations on the air? That was the start of
talkback radio. And he was a pioneer.
S4 (02:27):
And talk radio replaced the back fence. And that's why
people started to articulate and want to talk and talk
about their worries to me, instead of the person next door.
S1 (02:40):
That's fascinating. And just with regards to, I guess, how
influential he was, you know, we know that his interviews
with political leaders, both federal and state, are part of
political folklore. So let's get into that just a little bit,
because many listeners will know that former Prime Minister Paul
Keating once said, if you educate John Laws, you educate
Middle Australia. So what did he mean by that?
S2 (03:03):
He meant that John Laws, because of his national reach,
his program was syndicated out of Sydney all over the countryside,
but particularly because he had a very strong following in
western Sydney. Now, western Sydney is a sprawling area of
on the whole middle to lower middle class, working class people.
(03:27):
It contains a lot of marginal federal electorates then as now,
and laws had a tremendously strong following in this area
in particular. And so it was important for politicians of
all colours and stripes. So Keating, certainly, John Howard was
(03:48):
another one, were very anxious to get on the laws
program because they understood that laws had a particular genius
for communicating with this particular segment of the population, because
he had a reputation of telling it straight, telling it
as it was. And so this credibility was a very
important political asset for laws to have. And it meant
(04:12):
that the Keatings in the house of this world, in
a sense, could borrow some of that credibility through using
laws zero zero.
S4 (04:22):
With me in the studio, the Prime Minister of Australia,
Paul Keating. Good morning and welcome.
S3 (04:25):
Good morning.
S4 (04:26):
John. A bit of fog in Canberra was there.
S2 (04:28):
And so that is why Keating said forget the press
gallery in Canberra. Educate John Laws and to educate Australia.
S4 (04:37):
On the subject of Mabo over the week and a
bit that I've been back, I've done my best to
explain it as I see it, but still some hysteria
exists and a lot of Australians would like to talk
to the Prime Minister. Here's your opportunity. Hello? Hello, are
you there, John? Yeah, right. Okay, now you go right ahead.
The Prime Minister is here listening to you.
S5 (04:53):
Now, I don't know whether I'm limited to a question
or not, Mr. Keating, but I.
S6 (04:57):
Well, I'd love for you to take us through one particular.
S1 (05:00):
Informative incident which illustrates this. And this is what was dubbed,
at least in political circles, the John Law's election of 1983.
And that's when the Labour Party, led by Bob Hawke,
defeated Malcolm Fraser's coalition. So what happened?
S2 (05:15):
Well, what happened was that because of this recognition of
Lhasa's influence, Bob Hawke, Paul Keating, Malcolm Fraser, they were
all keen to get on the law's program and they
were making policy announcements on the law's program. It was
on the law's program that Keating first used the phrase
(05:37):
the Banana Republic, when he was talking about the risks
of the Australian economy becoming a third world economy. It
was on the law's program that Malcolm Fraser made a statement,
which was to go into folklore in Australia, that if
labor won the 1983 election, people would be safer keeping
their money under the bed. And of course, the immediate
(05:59):
riposte to that from Bob Hawke was. Well, hang on
a second. There's no room under the bed. That's where
the reds all are. And that had been. That was
a reference to Reds and the Reds under the Bed slogan,
which had been part of Australian politics by then for
a quarter of a century.
S1 (06:15):
Referring to communists, obviously.
S2 (06:17):
Of course, referring to communists. And so, um, you can
see that that leading politicians were were keen to be
on the program and on the program, of course, they
had to make it worth John Lawson's while to have them.
So they would use the laws program to make these
major campaign announcements as a kind of reward. Um, for
(06:39):
John Laws having them on. And of course, at the
same time to reach this crucial constituency.
S6 (06:45):
Very interesting.
S1 (06:47):
But we have to talk about, of course, the famous
cash for comment affair, because no discussion about John Laws
would be complete without this. So take us through it.
Take us. It was a massive controversy, of course.
S2 (06:58):
Yes, it was in 99. The ABC TV program Media
Watch broadcast an item alleging that the Australian Bankers Association
had struck a deal with laws under which laws would
eliminate from his program negative comment about the banks in
return for money.
S4 (07:19):
He became the bank's most prominent apologist. You know, we
do forget sometimes when we criticise them that banks are
made up of people. So there you are.
S2 (07:29):
Now, what had been going on before that was that characteristically,
laws had taken the part of these ordinary working people
to whom he was broadcasting against the banks. The banks
were being accused of greed and so on, and laws
was taking them on. And the the banking industry became
alarmed by this. They understood how influential laws could be.
(07:52):
And so they went to him and said, look, can
you just stop being negative and start being positive about
us and we'll pay you some money. And so in
place of all the negative comment that had been going on,
laws switched to positive comment. But he never revealed to
his listeners that in fact, he was being paid to
(08:13):
say these things.
S4 (08:14):
Remember the alleged cash for comment? Garbage that went on?
You know I'm going to die with that. Even though
all I was accused of was being excessively loyal to
my to my sponsors. And I'm rather proud of that.
S2 (08:29):
And it was a very successful strategy for the banking
industry and other industries saw how successful it could be.
So the trucking industry, the one of the casinos in Sydney, Telstra,
a whole lot of big corporations used the same strategy.
They went to laws and said, you say nice things
about us as if it were your own personal, honest
(08:52):
opinion and we'll pay you for it. But you don't
declare to your listeners that you're being paid. So it
became known as cash for comments. He wasn't the only
one involved. There were others as well. Findings were made
against him by the broadcasting regulator. He was in trouble
with the broadcasting authorities on and off. Basically all his career.
(09:15):
But he went on as before. Basically.
S1 (09:20):
We'll be right back. And that wasn't his only stoush, though, right?
Dennis with the broadcasting regulators. I'm just thinking about how
this might speak to how credible a journalist John Laws
actually was.
S2 (09:36):
Yeah. Well, in November 2004, he and another two presenters,
another Sydney presenter, were found guilty of breaking homosexual vilification
laws after they had had an on air discussion about
a gay couple that were appearing on reality TV. And
they called the couple a pair of young poofs. Well,
(09:56):
of course, that's gross. And it was a breach of
the homosexual vilification laws. Um, he was in trouble because
later in his career, a woman rang up to complain
about him and basically, um, uh, to criticize him. And, um,
(10:17):
he told her, say something constructive, like, you're going to
kill yourself. And the ACMA, the Broadcasting Authority, uh, rebuked
him and and SM to SM, the station he broadcasted on.
He asked the woman caller who said she'd been a
victim of sexual abuse, whether she'd been provocative. I mean,
that sort of stuff, uh, is unconscionable. And it was
(10:41):
the it was the ugly side of John Laws. Yes.
He was a a hero to a lot of people. Uh,
because he spoke up, he spoke to power on their behalf.
But then there was this, this ugly side as well.
S1 (10:54):
And so I have to ask, I mean, did he
remain anything of a notable force in broadcasting or radio
after these scandals? And if he did, can you maybe
walk us through why? That is because I would have
thought those breaches, they so fundamentally break the trust between
a journalist and the audience they're reporting for, like they
would bring any journalist down. You would think. So what
impact did they have on him or his standing?
S2 (11:15):
A couple of things to say about that, Sam. One
is laws himself, uh, basically disowned the idea that he
was a journalist. He said, I'm an entertainer. Well, he
can say that, but that doesn't get him off the hook,
does it? The real problem is that the media accountability
(11:37):
arrangements in Australia are extremely weak. The Australian Communications and
Media Authority, which is the broadcasting regulator, in fact co-regulates
with the broadcast industry. So it actually regulates in partnership
with the industry. It's meant to be independently regulating. And
even though it's got enormous powers, it can cancel broadcast licenses.
(11:59):
The problem really is that if they exercise those powers,
they'll be in serious trouble with any government of the day.
Doesn't matter whether it's labor or coalition, because the governments
do not want to get media moguls offside and you
try cancelling, um, Kerry Stokes's broadcasting licence, you try cancelling
(12:21):
Channel Nine's broadcast licence, and you'll find yourself pretty quickly
in the Prime Minister's office being told to get a grip.
So they basically resort to rebukes. They send the offenders memoranda.
They enter into what they are happy to call educative
conversations with the broadcasters. None of these make a blind
(12:44):
bit of difference. So that is the fundamental problem. You
can have enormously strong powers, but in the area of media,
if you use those very strong powers, you'll be in
a lot of political trouble.
S1 (12:58):
And I guess, just to wrap up, what sort of
legacy do you think John Laws leaves behind with regards
to the Australian media and particularly talkback radio?
S2 (13:07):
Oh, he set the template for it. There's no question,
because he was not only a pioneer, but that particular
combination of, well, strength of voice, his vulgarity. You know,
there's a curious part of human nature that sort of
enjoys listening to other people being bullied or being taken down,
(13:28):
and that was his style. And I think that that
style is, in a sense, created a template, particularly for
talkback radio in Sydney, the so-called Sydney shock jock phenomenon.
And I think that has been a lasting legacy because
we continue to see it going on today.
S1 (13:46):
So I would have thought that's something of a vexed legacy, though,
isn't it? I mean, here we've got, you know, some
of the most famous people in the world, including actor
Russell Crowe. You know, he has said he remembers John
Laws as a mischievous mate and a very good friend.
They were famously neighbours at the very luxurious Woolloomooloo Wharf
here in Sydney. And yet he essentially is leaving behind
a legacy of bullying people for, you know, incredibly lucrative
(14:10):
incomes on the radio. I mean, that's quite horrible, isn't it?
S2 (14:14):
Well, it's a mixed legacy because when you think back
to the important part he was playing in giving a
platform to our leading politicians during election campaigns, that's a
contribution to democracy. That's good. He certainly did speak up
for the for the powerless in the face of bullying
from government agencies and big corporations and so on. But
(14:35):
then there was always this other side. There was this
ugly side. And so it's a mixed legacy, and it
will be with us, I think, for quite a while
to come. Although, of course, I don't think we're ever
going to see a concentration of power in one broadcaster
of the kind we saw with laws, simply because today
(14:57):
the media communications spectrum is so fragmented.
S1 (15:02):
Well, thank you so much, Dennis, for your time.
S2 (15:05):
Been a pleasure, Sam.
S1 (15:18):
Today's episode of The Morning Edition was produced by Julia Carcasole.
Our executive producer is Tammy Mills. Tom McKendrick is our
head of audio. To listen to our episodes as soon
as they drop, follow the Morning Edition on Apple, Spotify,
or wherever you listen to podcasts. Our newsrooms are powered
by subscriptions, so to support independent journalism, visit the page
(15:41):
or smh.com.au. Subscribe and to stay up to date, sign
up to our Morning Edition newsletter to receive a summary
of the day's most important news in your inbox every morning.
Links are in the show. Notes. I'm Samantha Selinger. Morris.
Thanks for listening.
Popular Podcasts
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
Are You A Charlotte?
In 1997, actress Kristin Davis’ life was forever changed when she took on the role of Charlotte York in Sex and the City. As we watched Carrie, Samantha, Miranda and Charlotte navigate relationships in NYC, the show helped push once unacceptable conversation topics out of the shadows and altered the narrative around women and sex. We all saw ourselves in them as they searched for fulfillment in life, sex and friendships. Now, Kristin Davis wants to connect with you, the fans, and share untold stories and all the behind the scenes. Together, with Kristin and special guests, what will begin with Sex and the City will evolve into talks about themes that are still so relevant today. "Are you a Charlotte?" is much more than just rewatching this beloved show, it brings the past and the present together as we talk with heart, humor and of course some optimism.
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.