Chris Uhlmann, who is not exactly a fan of Australia’s shift to renewables, made sure he was front and centre at the energy ministers debate. The columnist for the Australian and a Sky News political contributor – who was once the political editor at ABC and Nine – adopted an aggressive tone as he grilled Chris Bowen about Labor’s $275 power bill promise.
Uhlmann did not so much ask the energy minister a question at the National Press Club debate as deliver a 136-word monologue, repeatedly goading Bowen to admit he was wrong.
“It’s a very, very simple question, have electricity prices risen on your watch? The exact opposite of what you pledged.
“You’ve got strong views about these matters, which you express on Sky News in the evenings,” Bowen replied.
After the debate, Uhlmann and his robust opinions then joined Sky’s chief election analyst, Tom Connell, who moderated the contest between Bowen and the shadow climate and energy minister, Ted O’Brien, in another forum – a panel – which was a “content partnership” between Sky News, Australian Energy Producers, Clean Energy Council and Minerals Council of Australia.
The advertorial was broadcast on Sky News while federal political reporter Angira Bharadwaj wrote a report for the website. On Friday the Daily Telegraph carried a full-page advertising feature in which the paying partners were handed space to extol their views – and all without the pesky interference of journalists.
A winner in their hearts
At least Sky had more control over the non-editorial panel than it did over the results of the first leaders’ debate on Tuesday evening, which the network promoted as potentially the “turning point in the campaign ahead of the May 3 federal election”.
As the Yes Minister character Sir Humphrey Appleby quipped, one should never set up an inquiry unless one knows in advance what its findings will be.
Daily Telegraph editor Ben English was sceptical about the make-up of the panel before the result was unveiled at 9pm.
“I was starting to wonder about the composition of the undecided voters,” he said, adding that “there might be a few inquiries” made.
The winner of the debate was decided by an audience of 100 undecided voters, but when they declared that Anthony Albanese had won the first debate “with Labor’s plan to build Australia’s future”, many of the News Corp top brass did not agree.
Broadcaster Ray Hadley, who is writing for the Tele during the election, said he was “baffled” by the verdict.
In the Australian, Dennis Shanahan, Simon Benson, Greg Sheridan, Chris Kenny and Claire Harvey all declared Peter Dutton was the clear winner in their minds and hearts.
“The Liberal leader was assertive, relaxed and came across as a more convincing interlocutor,” Benson wrote.
“It’s a narrow judgment, but I think Dutton had a narrow win,” Sheridan said.
Kenny: “Dutton won the night on substance and facts and will hope it gives his campaign a boost. Albanese, however, skated through without major damage, so will be pleased.”
Tate ads a ‘technical misfire’
The Australian Women’s Weekly has blamed a “technical misfire” for publishing a “Shop This Image” advertising integration alongside a profile of self-proclaimed misogynist and alleged rapist Andrew Tate, who has denied all wrongdoing. With just one click, readers were encouraged to copy Tate’s style with some similar items for sale from local retailers.
The integration was removed after Weekly Beast asked the editor, Sophie Tedmanson, last week why Tate’s image was being used to sell $1,499 men’s watches and designer boxer shorts.
“Are Media is aware of an inappropriate shopping integration that appeared alongside a story about Andrew Tate on the Australian Women’s Weekly website. This integration has been removed. The integration was automated and a rare instance of a technical misfire, which has since been addressed to prevent reoccurrence,” an Are Media spokesperson told Weekly Beast.
“Are Media does not support or endorse Andrew Tate or the views he promotes. Our editorial stance remains firmly aligned with advocating for women and reporting on issues that matter to them with integrity and care.”
Bondi stabbing inquest reporting in spotlight
When the promos for 60 Minutes went to air last week about an interview with advertising guru John Singleton – whose daughter Dawn was one of the Bondi Junction stabbing victims – her family were distressed to see that the Nine broadcast included photographs and video from the young woman’s social media accounts.
The barrister who will be representing the families of Dawn as well as Ashlee Good and Jade Young at the inquest, Sue Chrysanthou, wrote to 60 Minutes asking that the images be removed. A breach of copyright claim was lodged against the Nine Network in the New South Wales supreme court.
At a directions hearing on Monday, Chrysanthou asked the media reporting on the inquest and on the anniversary to “take extreme care to address the sensitivities of each family, not just my clients, but the other four families involved”.
“The families I represent were very adversely impacted by some members of the media, and how they behaved in the minutes and hours and days after the tragedy occurred,” she said.
The inquest has been extended to examine media reporting in the immediate aftermath of the event and the impact upon the families of the deceased.
Farage’s views cost Sky a pretty penny
Sky News Australia viewers are regularly treated to the views of the Reform UK leader, Nigel Farage, who pops up as a commentator on issues in the UK and here.
This week, for example, Farage offered that Australia’s relationship with the US would be “far more beneficial” under Dutton.
Now – thanks to the UK’s new MPs register of interests – we know these views for the Australian channel are costing Sky News dearly.
His spokesperson said a £25,368 payment – about $53,000 – was made to Farage in February for 19 hours of work “over several months”.
Suppression order in Lattouf case
Justice Darryl Rangiah returns to court on 30 April for the Antoinette Lattouf v ABC case but not to deliver the judgment (there is no news on a date for that yet). Rather, it is for a lobby group, Lawyers for Israel, against Nine Entertainment in connection with an earlier suppression order granted by the court.
Rangiah granted a suppression order at the start of the trial to protect the identities and contact details of pro-Israel individuals who had contacted the ABC with complaints about Lattouf’s employment.
On day seven of the trial, Rangiah returned to the matter, asking any media who may have published the names of some of the people who complained about Lattouf to comply with his suppression order.
“I made a suppression order last Monday. The solicitors acting for the applicants who sought the suppression order have written to the court asserting that a particular media organisation has published articles which disclose the identities of those protected by the suppression order,” he said.
Nine declined to comment.
Spitting image of a true pro
A shout-out to veteran Nine newsreader Peter Overton, who was attempting to introduce the political editor, Charles Croucher, when there was a slight mishap.
He maintained his professional cool as he inadvertently spat a throat lozenge out of his mouth, exclaiming, “oh excuse me” as he caught the lolly in his hand.
• This story was amended on 12 April 2025 to clarify that Ben English made comments on the panel before the final debate verdict was announced.
