In 2011, Channel 9 scored a one-on-one interview with the Daili Lama during his Australian tour. It was handed to their larrikan breakfast guy – Karl Stefanovic.
Karl attempted a famously terrible joke that went like this ‘The Dalai Lama walks into a pizza shop and he says, “Can you make me one with everything?”’
It might have worked with mates at the pub but on TV with the Dalai Lama himself? The great man looked to his interpreter who had the impossible task of trying to explain ‘pizza shop’ in Tibetan. Karl struggled on looking more and more idiotic. When he realised the joke had backfired badly he laughed. Earnest, affable, accident-prone Karl, completely misreading his subject and fluffing the big moment.
Channel 9 posted the Daili Lama clip twice on YouTube – it became a fun meme with nearly five million views. It epitomised the Karl millions of Australians knew and liked. This was the same Karl that Channel 9 spent decades promoting. They successfully ran an audience campaign to help their star win the ‘most popular TV Presenter’ Gold Logie. The Gold Logie – it’s a TV entertainment award.
#KrushingKarl
So it came as a surprise this week when the Sydney Morning Herald (SMH) started to deploy multiple Walkley winning (real) journalists to savage Karl-the-Logie-winner for being too friendly in his podcast interview with a UK neo-Nazi.
In four days, the SMH ran at least eight news stories and six opinion and editorial pieces attacking his failure to meet high professional standards of journalism.
I take their point but not the astonishing breadth and volume of coverage. Over four days the SMH desks and sections covering the story included the national news; live blog; business; media & marketing; opinion; editorial; cbd; culture wars; on background; videos; entertainment; television; and of course podcasts. Video packages and ‘explainers’ have also been prepared and published.
I have subscribed for over 40 years to the SMH – I love that paper and its various campaigns for women’s rights, climate action, and investigations against the likes of Eddie Obeid and those accused of war crimes. Yes, they sure can wield a sledgehammer – but to focus all their cannons on a single podcast by a fading breakfast show presenter? It was weird. It was disproportionate and lacked context.
To make money a successful podcaster requires a streak of pure bastardry that Karl Stefanovic obviously lacks. Think of Candice Owen accusing French President Emmanual Macron’s wife of being a man – and doggedly amplifying that conspiracy claim for years – even as the outraged Macrons are suing her for defamation.
I am not convinced a person who face-planted into his own pizza joke is capable of that.
I am guessing Karl has been given some terrible advice by hard right ‘mates’ who want to exploit his popularity for their cause. It is natural to try to make a future for himself but he has yet again misread the room and made a fool of himself. This time it’s not funny and Channel 9 have switched from defending him to throwing everything they own at him – unfortunately this includes their ownership of the SMH.
In politics, conflict of interest disclosures are mandatory and made up front – not mumbled three quarters of the way into a speech that you should not even be making, because you are too compromised to speak objectively.
The same ethical rules of disclosure apply to news media. It goes to trust. Some SMH stories have made a short mention that ‘Channel 9 owns this masthead’. Technically they ticked the box. But morally? Should they have allowed themselves to be used like this at all?
Channel 9 decided to allow Karl to try to ‘reinvent himself’ in exchange for a pay cut, to save themselves money. It was a critical mistake that lies at the heart of how this happened. Yet the SMH lopsided reporting is not holding anyone but Karl accountable.
I am certainly no apologist for Karl’s podcasts. But how big a threat is he to democracy? My bigger worry is protecting the integrity of the SMH. Because they are more than an arm of someone else’s corporate strategy. They really are a cornerstone of trust.
News Corp has already failed many integrity tests by becoming a activist rather than a reporter of news. So the traditions of the SMH matter more now than ever. Yet it’s bannerhead: ‘Independent. Always.’ no longer feels accurate. Denting that credibility would be a far bigger blow to democracy than any Karl podcast.
The lesson to everyone seeking to champion Australia’s better angels against the hard right is to believe in, and protect, the power of integrity. Nietzsche’s excellent advice: when fighting monsters, one must take great care not to become a monster yourself.
Lennox Head-based Catherine Cusack is a retired NSW Liberal MLC.
For four decades The Echo has printed the stories some people loved, some people hated, and some pretended not to read. If you want us to keep telling the truth, the real truth, not the sugar-coated version. We’ll need your support to keep the presses rolling. 
