A philosophical answer to a question about ABC audio strategy has blown up into an international debate, intersecting with the debate about the power of new and old media and the Australian government’s legislation this week to ban children under 16 years of age from having social media accounts.

Canberra based ABC reporter Jane Norman asked ABC Chair Kim Williams a question on his observations about the Joe Rogan effect on the US Election and new trends in media consumption. “How should the ABC be going about capturing that type of audience?” she asked her boss from the floor of the National Press Club.

Williams replied that he was not the best person to respond to that question because he didn’t listen to Joe Rogan’s podcast. “I am not a consumer or an enthusiast about Mr Rogan and his work…”

Then he went on to respond to the question anyway, saying:

“I think people like Mr Rogan prey on people’s vulnerabilities… fear and… anxiety, they prey on all of the elements that contribute to uncertainty in society. They entrepreneur fantasy and conspiracy outcomes as being a normal part of social narrative.

“I personally find that deeply repulsive.

“I’m in dismay that this can be s source of public entertainment… it is treating the public as plunder for purposes that are quiet malevolent.”

The comments have now been linked to other issues, widening what may have remained as a footnote in a speech about the ABC’s role and the need for more funding, into an international issue linked with media policy, social media business models and the power of podcasting and social media to influence elections.

On Twitter, now known as X, Joe Rogan responded, linking the comments to the Australian Government’s moves to fight misinformation on social platforms that have so far been immune from media regulation in Australia.

The government last night passed legislation to regulate young people’s use of social media in the Online Safety Bill.

Elon Musk, who has weighted in several times on the subject of the Bill to limit the influence of his company and its publication X, took the opportunity to sink the boot in to the public broadcasting boss with this comment, likening the ABC to Russia’s former government propaganda media mouthpiece Pravda.

The international commentary on Kim Williams’ comments continues to reverberate around the twittersphere as those with viewpoints from all sides of the debate use the comments to spark discussion about the place of broadcast media, social-media, exploitation, ‘free-speech,’ and other current issues, obscuring one of the key messages of the speech, a pitch for more funding.

Speaking to Raf Epstein this morning on ABC Radio Melbourne, Williams said he has experienced a huge social-media ‘pile-on’ about the comments:

“What fascinates me is, you say something negative about Joe Rogan and I have been swarmed with the most unbelievably vicious responses…

“You make a comment in response to a legitimate question from a journalist, you answer it concisely and give an honest answer in terms of what your own perception is and suddenly I get this huge pile-on from people in the most aggressive way … saying that I have a warped outlook on the world, that I am an embarrassment to our nation, that I am in some way unhinged.”

Some extracts from Kim Williams’ speech:

We are a geographically large country at the bottom of the world whose language is the lingua franca, English. We can receive, read and absorb almost everything, instantaneously. This gives us great advantages. But it also leaves us uniquely vulnerable.

Where once we couldn’t get enough information . . . and where once that information was mostly factual and reliable . . . we are being flooded with content, some of it dubious, some of it downright lies.

That trickle of information we once rushed out to bring ashore has become a Tsunami, breaking through our feeble levees, washing over us, surging through the streets to potentially reshape our mental landscape, especially the minds of our young.

Like all Tsunamis, it drags ashore sharp, dangerous objects.

Misinformation — false information spread due to ignorance, error or mistake, sometimes without intention to deceive.

And disinformation — the deliberate spreading of false information and narratives to achieve malicious intent. The products of Vladimir Putin’s bot farms. Andrew Tate’s poisonous misogynistic videos. AI tools in the hands of our enemies and criminals. Lies intended to spread confusion, exploit vulnerability, sow division, destroy resolve.

Australia and similar countries have recently started to realise the profound damage this can cause — especially in an era of increasing global tension and military conflict.

As French President Emmanuel Macron remarked earlier this year when speaking of Europe: we are living in an era of cultural clash, driven by digital social networks and the digitisation of society, in which we are losing our capacity to produce our own national narrative, making it impossible to build our own future.

In the digital world we all now inhabit, Macron argued, information has become an issue of national sovereignty.

Let’s be clear . . . if we do not provide our people with trusted information, we will increasingly tell ourselves stories that are not really about us, but part of an extended global imaginary — our own story disappearing under the waves.

It’s already happening.

That Tsunami of overseas-generated content breaching our information defences is now competing for the affections, hearts, minds and aspirations of our people. Most dangerously, it is targeting the next generation of Australian children, teenagers and young adults, compromising their confidence about and knowledge of Australian history, Australian stories, Australian accents and Australian values in ways that may harm our future.

This is damaging our social cohesion, weakening the links between our regions and cities, generating unnecessary cultural conflict, weakening us.

We must counter it.

Our first line of defence is to create an environment in which facts from credible sources predominate. Strengthening our nation’s news capacity is essential…

The ABC’s news output is already impressive… But we must make it even stronger.

This will require extra investment. But also a commitment to the most important quality of journalism: objectivity.

That’s why since taking the job of Chair of the ABC I have been insisting that all our journalists adhere, always, to the highest standards of objectivity and professional ethics.

We do not serve causes at the ABC, we serve the truth. This is non-negotiable.

We will sometimes make mistakes. But when we do, we will acknowledge them, correct them, and redouble our efforts to avoid them in the future, as we have done in recent times. Our processes are and will remain robust and under vigilant editorial review.

The full speech is available here.