Oct 4, 2026 · 1 hr 4 min · 10 segments
Os is joined by comedian and podcaster Tom Ballard to analyse the Greens new leadership team, discuss whether the media has got any better at how it covers the party, and look at how much the party…
Osman FaruqiHost
Tom BallardGuest
Okay, Tom, so in last Thursday's episode, Scott and I discussed the Greens' leadership change, mainly through the lens of how the media's coverage showed how little they really seem to understand about the party and its dynamics.
Over the past week, what have you noticed about coverage of the new Greens leadership team? Do you think it's gotten better? It's gotten more interesting? Has it gotten worse? Do we need to just accept that political journalism in this country is largely dog shit and that's just the reality? What do you make of it?
up the long-held tradition of being terrible at covering the Greens, not really taking them seriously, showing very little interest in, yes, how the party works, what the party's about.
And look, this is partly the Greens' own fault or a result of the situation, but there was an extraordinary amount of focus on the interpersonal issues.
personality politics and the drama within the party room, which is understandable because some members of that party room posted things in the wake of the result that was inevitably going to attract that kind of attention.
But yeah, I felt like whenever I was seeing David being interviewed or Steph was being interviewed, they would try to pull it back to policy and what they're all about and the stuff that really matters, which is the state of the country and what their politics is about, what they want to change to make things better.
Anyway, who do you hate in the party room? And why are you self-constructionist? So that was something that I'm very used to, having hosted Serious Danger week after week.
One point that Scott and I make a lot on the show is just how News Corp is so deeply influential on every conversation in Australian politics and media, like well beyond their own publications, like our kind of view.
community, right? Firstly, that framing of the question, I think, is ridiculous.
But that question and its response were written up by journalists at the Sydney Morning Herald and the ABC.
There was more coverage about David Shoebridge and whether or not he has good relations with Jewish people than you see written about Pauline Hanson's actual racism.
Okay, Tom, so in last Thursday's episode, Scott and I discussed the Greens' leadership change, mainly through the lens of how the media's coverage showed how little they really seem to understand about the party and its dynamics.
Over the past week, what have you noticed about coverage of the new Greens leadership team? Do you think it's gotten better? It's gotten more interesting? Has it gotten worse? Do we need to just accept that political journalism in this country is largely dog shit and that's just the reality? What do you make of it?
up the long-held tradition of being terrible at covering the Greens, not really taking them seriously, showing very little interest in, yes, how the party works, what the party's about.
And look, this is partly the Greens' own fault or a result of the situation, but there was an extraordinary amount of focus on the interpersonal issues.
personality politics and the drama within the party room, which is understandable because some members of that party room posted things in the wake of the result that was inevitably going to attract that kind of attention.
But yeah, I felt like whenever I was seeing David being interviewed or Steph was being interviewed, they would try to pull it back to policy and what they're all about and the stuff that really matters, which is the state of the country and what their politics is about, what they want to change to make things better.
Anyway, who do you hate in the party room? And why are you self-constructionist? So that was something that I'm very used to, having hosted Serious Danger week after week.
One point that Scott and I make a lot on the show is just how News Corp is so deeply influential on every conversation in Australian politics and media, like well beyond their own publications, like our kind of view.
community, right? Firstly, that framing of the question, I think, is ridiculous.
But that question and its response were written up by journalists at the Sydney Morning Herald and the ABC.
There was more coverage about David Shoebridge and whether or not he has good relations with Jewish people than you see written about Pauline Hanson's actual racism.
The rest of this transcript — segmented and speaker-labeled, so you land on the exact moment something was said
Search every transcript — by keyword, by phrase, or by meaning, across every show Radar indexes
Trends — what is surging across podcasts, measured against its own baseline
Alerts — when a name you follow appears in a newly indexed episode
No account is needed to search Radar.