Should the News Just Ignore One Nation?
The Guardian published the Back to Back Barries episode "Should the media boycott One Nation?" on 25 September 2026. The Guardian
The episode was presented by Barrie Cassidy and Sean Kelly. Kelly filled in for Tony Barry. It was produced by Daniel Semo and Rachel Herron, with Hannah Parkes as executive producer.
On substance, the episode covers the prime minister's week in the US. It pairs that with Donald Trump's ban of three news organisations from the White House. It then asks if Australian news outlets could team up to boycott a party or politician. It also looks at how press conferences should run, and why politicians should be careful about letting AI write speeches.
The broader context here is simple. A boycott sounds easy. It is not. News outlets fight each other for stories and viewers. Getting them all to stay away together is hard. Someone always cracks.
In my view, the Trump example makes the choice clearer. A US president banning journalists spells out the stakes. It forces Aussie editors and staffers to ask where their own line is. Do they walk out together or keep turning up alone? Both sides need each other. Pollies need airtime. Outlets need access.
Looking at what this means for press conferences, the small stuff counts. Who gets a question. How much warning is given. What to do when someone plays up for the cameras. Handle it badly and you feed the act. Handle it well and it still looks rough, because that is the job.
Looking at what this means for AI and speeches, caution makes sense. A speech is a promise in your own voice. Let a computer write it and you own its words, its mistakes and its clangers. You get none of the judgment that saves you in question time. Staff know it. Bosses learn it the hard way.
In my view, none of that settles whether to boycott One Nation. It shows why the question keeps coming back. Put someone on the news and you hand them the microphone. Leave them out and that can help them too. Newsrooms must choose each time, then explain the call.
Looking at what this means for people who work in politics, there is no neat lesson. Cassidy and Kelly leave room for disagreement without forcing an answer. That is probably the point. Sort your rules before you need them.
