Should the Media Boycott One Nation? Inside the Latest Back to Back Barries
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 whether Australian outlets could act together to boycott a party or politician. The discussion also looks at press conference ethics, who gets called on and what counts as fair play, and why politicians should be wary of letting AI write speeches.
The broader context here will be familiar to gallery watchers. Boycotts sound neat in theory. They fall apart fast in practice. Australian political media is competitive and split. A joint boycott needs discipline from outlets that fight each other for scoops, ratings and clicks. Someone always breaks.
In my view, the Trump parallel does a lot of work here. An American president banning outlets from the White House spells out the stakes. It forces Australian editors and chiefs of staff to pick their own red lines. Do they walk away together or keep turning up separately? The answer shapes leverage, because politicians need coverage and outlets need access. Both sides know it.
Looking at what this means for press conference practice, the ethics question matters most day to day. Who gets called on, what counts as fair notice, how to handle theatrics. These are small calls that shape coverage. Get them wrong and you feed the performance. Get them right and the exchange still looks rough, because that is the job.
Looking at what this means for AI and speeches, caution makes sense. A speech is not just words in order. It is authorisation. It puts a leader on the record in their own voice. Hand that job to a model and you own its phrasing, its errors and its tin ear, without the political judgment that keeps a line alive in question time. Staff know this. Principals learn it the hard way.
In my view, none of that settles whether to boycott One Nation. It explains why the question keeps returning. Coverage can confer legitimacy. Absence can do the same. Newsrooms have to decide party by party and appearance by appearance, then defend the call.
Looking at what this means for political professionals, the value is not instruction. Cassidy and Kelly leave room for disagreement without forcing a verdict. That is probably the point. Check your own rules before you need them.
