0:00

You're listening to a Mama

0:03

Mia podcast. Mama Mia

0:05

acknowledges the traditional owners of land and waters

0:07

that this podcast is recorded on. Mama

0:10

Mia Out Loud. Hello

0:13

and welcome to Mama Mia Out Loud. What

0:15

women are actually talking about on Monday, 8th

0:17

of April. I'm Mia Friedman and I'm driving

0:19

the Out Loud bus this week because Holly's

0:22

away. I'm Jessi Stevens and I'm M. Vernon.

0:24

I'm a writer here at Mama Mia and

0:26

I also host our daily entertainment podcast called

0:28

The Spill. Filling in for Holly

0:31

today. It means I get an upgrade to the

0:33

big show. Yeah, you're in the big show today.

0:35

Before we get into today's show, a reminder that

0:37

Mama Mia Out Loud Live presented by Nivea Cellular

0:39

is coming up in a few weeks and heads

0:42

up our Brisbane show almost sold out.

0:44

Tickets for Sydney and Melbourne and the last few

0:47

Brisbane tickets are available at the link in the

0:49

show notes. I'm meeting so many people coming up

0:51

to me going, I've got tickets. My girlfriends are

0:53

all going. We're making a weekend of it. Love

0:55

it. Can't wait. There's quite a

0:57

vibe. It's starting to happen. I made my

0:59

mum buy tickets anyway. On

1:02

the show today, sex workers, cocaine

1:04

and a very, very big steak.

1:07

There's new evidence in the Bruce Lammon defamation

1:09

case and we have so many questions. Plus

1:12

not since Gwyneth Paltrow and Chris

1:15

Martin's conscious uncoupling post about their

1:17

divorce, has there been

1:19

a celebrity split announcement with so

1:22

much subtext? We deconstruct Isla Fisher

1:24

and Sacha Baron Cohen's slightly baffling

1:26

post from the weekend and

1:29

the prank by three of Australia's

1:31

most famous feminists and the coolest

1:33

guy in comedy that went very

1:36

wrong and left some people in

1:38

tears. But first. In

1:40

case you missed it, Australia is mourning the

1:43

death of Zomie Frankom, an

1:45

aid worker employed by World Central Kitchen

1:47

who was killed while supplying aid to

1:49

Gaza on Monday last week. Frankom

1:52

was one of seven international aid workers

1:54

killed by an Israeli airstrike while delivering

1:56

food and other supplies to northern Gaza.

2:00

The charity says it had coordinated its

2:02

movements with the Israeli Defence Forces

2:04

and we know that they were

2:06

in cars marked with the group's

2:08

logo. Of the seven

2:10

that were killed, Frankham was from Australia

2:12

with the other six from Poland, the

2:15

UK, the US, Canada and Palestine. According

2:18

to the United Nations, this brings the death

2:20

toll of aid workers killed in this conflict

2:22

to 196. Prime

2:25

Minister Albanese is among several world leaders who

2:27

are outraged over the death of aid workers

2:30

and he has expressed anger

2:32

and concern towards Israeli Prime

2:34

Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. Israel

2:36

has referred to the attack as

2:39

a grave mistake due to a

2:41

misidentification at night during a war

2:43

in very complex conditions. There

2:46

is so much more to say about this,

2:48

but it's certainly a tipping point for a

2:50

lot of world leaders when it comes to

2:52

this war and our thoughts are with Frankham's

2:54

family as well as the countless

2:56

families of all who have lost

2:58

their lives in this devastating and

3:00

ongoing conflict. Tens of thousands

3:03

of Israelis actually rallied, I don't know

3:05

if you saw in the news, against

3:07

Prime Minister Netanyahu as the Gaza War

3:09

reaches its six month mark. Organisers said

3:11

there were about 100,000 people

3:13

who converged in the streets of Tel

3:15

Aviv and they were later joined by

3:17

families of Gaza hostages. The

3:20

people were chanting elections now and

3:22

protesters called for the Israeli Prime

3:24

Minister's resignation. It's entering

3:26

its seventh month before on Sunday.

3:29

In case you missed it, we have

3:31

a new Governor General. Sam Mostyn

3:33

has recently been appointed and

3:36

everything I've read about Sam is describing

3:38

her as modern. Like she's a modern

3:41

choice, she's a modern Governor General. What

3:43

does that actually mean? Sam

3:46

is actually phenomenal. She's

3:48

innovative, she's empathetic. Does

3:50

modern mean young? Modern

3:53

means not military

3:55

and a woman. She's

3:58

going to be our 28th Governor General. It's a kind

4:00

of strange post, it's sort of a

4:02

throwback post because it's, you're the king's

4:04

representative in Australia and it's kind of

4:07

irrelevant even though you are officially the

4:09

representative of our head of state which

4:11

is the king. Do they have power? Yes,

4:14

they can famously with the dismissal back in

4:16

the 70s, the governor, it was the

4:19

governor general that dismissed the Whitlam government

4:21

but that's only happened once. Okay, so

4:23

what's her background? So she

4:26

is a prolific company director, she's

4:28

the former AFL commissioner, she's a

4:30

last long advocate for women, First

4:32

Nations people and the environment

4:34

so I think that part

4:36

of her background is why people

4:38

are saying that Anthony Albanese may

4:41

have dragged the role into the 21st

4:43

century. She's only the second

4:45

woman to serve in the post, the

4:47

first was Quentin Brice who was probably

4:49

a generation older. And another reason

4:51

that they say that it's a more modern

4:53

form of public service is because her background

4:55

is in business and community work. So governor

4:58

generals usually have had a military, a judicial

5:00

or a political background. So that's why it

5:03

sort of feels fresher. She's a phenomenal woman,

5:05

I've only met her a couple of times but you

5:07

know. Oh, it's flex. Yeah, yeah. It's

5:10

true. She's very empathetic. I'd

5:13

love her to be my mentor, I'm sure she's a bit

5:15

busy but she's the kind of person. Maybe you can bring

5:17

her in. Yeah, I'd love to like. I think this is

5:19

a good way to ask if she'll be your mentor. And

5:23

do it publicly so she can't say no. You

5:26

couldn't write it. It is a never-ending

5:28

trial with more characters and more twists and

5:30

turns than any TV series you've watched in

5:32

years. If you are

5:34

wondering how an allegation made by Brittany

5:37

Higgins alleging she was raped in Parliament

5:39

House in March 2019, that is five

5:41

years ago, has ended

5:43

up being about how much Bruce Lehman

5:46

allegedly spent on a piece of steak,

5:48

sex workers and cocaine with a journalist

5:50

years later, we are here to explain.

5:54

Last week, Justice Michael Lee was set to

5:56

deliver a verdict. You might have remembered it

5:58

was meant to be Thursday. day. If

6:01

you're asking a verdict on what, fair question.

6:03

I think a lot of people have lost

6:05

the thread of this case

6:07

because it's splintered off into so

6:09

many different timelines. Yeah, and

6:12

different defamation cases in so many different

6:14

courts about so many different aspects of

6:16

this story. Exactly. So there have been

6:19

all of those cases and this one

6:21

concerns Lamben's defamation case against Network 10

6:23

and Lisa Wilkinson. So he brought this

6:26

defamation case because he wanted to clear

6:28

his name. Then at

6:30

the 11th hour, along came a man

6:32

named Taylor Auerbach, a

6:35

former Channel 7 producer who alleges he was

6:37

assigned as a babysitter for Lamben who the

6:39

network was trying to get over the line

6:41

for an exclusive interview. You

6:44

might remember in June, 2023, Lamben

6:46

was on Channel 7 spotlight program where he

6:48

shared his version of events. Soon

6:51

after that, there were allegations that seven

6:53

paid for Lamben's accommodation in Sydney and

6:55

the documents revealed that was to the

6:57

sum of $4,000 a fortnight. The

7:01

seven network told Guardian Australia in

7:03

May, seven news spotlight made no

7:05

payment to Bruce Lamben for the

7:07

interview. However, the program assisted with

7:09

accommodation as part of

7:11

the filming of the report. Well,

7:14

Auerbach is telling a different story and

7:16

here's what he says. The

7:18

pair golfed in Tasmania and dined on a $361

7:20

stake all paid four by seven. During

7:25

one dinner in Sydney, how could a stake be

7:27

that much? I mean, I'm a vegetarian. They

7:29

put those gold flakes on them now. Do they

7:32

lick you? They make them really fancy. You

7:34

know when you're at a golf event? You've worked at a golf

7:36

club. Of course, is that a thing that happens? Oh, look not

7:38

at the golf club. I worked at. But you know when you're

7:40

at like a work event and you're like, I'm not paying for

7:42

this. And you kind

7:44

of go a little bit out there. Yeah,

7:47

you're like, I want T bone. Yeah, exactly.

7:49

That appears to be what Lamben did in

7:51

this situation. During one dinner in Sydney, Lamben

7:53

bought cocaine and then started looking up sex

7:56

workers. Auerbach says Channel seven

7:58

reimbursed Lamben for those drives. drugs and

8:00

the sex workers, which amounted to more than $10,000 in

8:02

services. That's

8:05

an expense claim and a half. Look, I've had

8:07

to sign off a few expense claims. I've also

8:09

had to make a few expense claims in my

8:11

day. And, you know, working

8:13

around here, there's some interesting things that you

8:15

expense. Yeah. But

8:18

never has someone asked to be

8:20

reimbursed for sex workers and cocaine.

8:22

Exactly. The most serious allegation,

8:24

because that's one thing and that's what's been

8:27

getting headlines and getting people talking because it's

8:29

incredibly shocking. And what was

8:31

allegedly discussed between these men was a

8:33

figure, a dollar figure, which the

8:35

way that it works, it seems, is that

8:37

I wouldn't give you $200,000. But

8:40

whether it's rent, there are other instances where it might

8:43

be a trust fund or school fees or something, you

8:45

might pay for things. And there's a reason for that.

8:47

So even though Bruce Lamben has never been convicted

8:50

of a crime, if you have been convicted of

8:52

a crime, there are laws around

8:54

you profiting from that crime.

8:56

Why? Afterwards. Because you

8:59

interviewed cocaine Cassie. I did. Whose actual

9:01

name is Cassie Sainsbury. Yeah. For

9:04

an interview like that, would it be against a lot of parents? It's

9:07

a little tricky because she committed her

9:09

crime in another country. And

9:11

I think Chappelle Corby also falls in

9:13

that category. But we

9:15

don't pay for interviews at Mamma Mia.

9:19

Some programs do. It's called

9:21

checkbook journalism. What makes

9:23

that slightly different is that, for

9:26

example, this interview was entered initially in

9:28

the Walkley's. And one of

9:30

the criteria for that is that you can't pay because

9:33

it was entered for Scoop of the Year. And part

9:35

of getting a scoop is winning the trust

9:38

of your source. If there's

9:40

an exchange of goods or services,

9:43

then that's different. So for example,

9:45

SAS Australia is

9:47

a show, and I don't know

9:49

if they've ever had convicted criminals

9:51

on that show. But the

9:54

first thing people say is, did such and

9:56

such get paid for an interview when someone

9:58

who's, you know, constantly... Sam

10:00

Burgess was on it, I remember, and there were allegations

10:02

against him that were not there. There

10:05

were. So, of course, if there have just been allegations against

10:07

someone and they haven't been convicted, you can pay

10:09

them whatever you like. But I think

10:11

that the reason that this payment would have

10:13

been hidden is that it

10:16

doesn't make anyone look very good. No,

10:18

it doesn't. And parking sort of

10:20

the legal conversation for a side,

10:22

I think this has also become

10:24

a very ethical conversation about we

10:26

have a man who Britney Higgins

10:29

alleges, and that case is not

10:31

going forward, but alleges, wrote to him

10:33

in Parliament House five years ago to

10:36

see him profiting in any way is

10:39

something that wouldn't pass the pub test in terms

10:41

of people sitting around going, oh, I

10:43

don't, that makes no comfortable. But if

10:45

he's not been convicted, so he is

10:48

technically an innocent man, and his claim,

10:50

and this is why he's suing for

10:52

defamation and damages, he can't work now

10:54

because of what he says are untrue

10:57

allegations and the fact that they were

10:59

aired. And I should also say that just because someone

11:01

is paid for an interview,

11:04

that doesn't necessarily mean they're

11:07

not credible or that they're somehow guilty

11:09

or something. I mean, Lindy Chamberlain very

11:11

famously won't do interviews that she's not

11:13

paid for. And the vegans filled miners

11:15

didn't do anything wrong, but they were

11:18

paid for their interview. You know, there

11:20

was a very famous agent called Harry

11:22

Miller, who used to negotiate all these

11:25

big, big, you know, massive amounts of

11:27

money would change hands. It happens less

11:29

now. And it's more sort

11:31

of sneaky the way it happens. I shouldn't say sneaky,

11:33

but it's not as

11:35

common as it was in that the amounts aren't as big.

11:38

But for example, instead of writing someone a

11:40

check, you help them with accommodation. Now that

11:42

accommodation court documents now show was worth over

11:44

$100,000 as rent. So

11:47

it wasn't just for the duration of the

11:50

interview. Yeah, it wasn't just an Airbnb for

11:52

a couple of nights. And you know, that's

11:54

not really anyone's business. And you understand from

11:56

the point of view of the person

11:59

being interviewed. whether it's

12:01

Lindy Chamberlain or Bruce Lammon or the

12:03

Beaconsfield miners or whoever it happens to

12:05

be, them telling their

12:07

story is going to be worth a

12:09

lot of money to whoever gets it

12:12

because they're advertising and rating. Yeah, on

12:14

that. I mean, obviously, Lindy Chamberlain was

12:16

acquitted and she was. The Beaconsfield miners

12:18

weren't accused of anything. So there are

12:20

a lot of ethical discussions going on.

12:22

But interestingly, and I'm not sure that

12:24

people know this, the most serious allegation

12:27

that has been brought forward by our back

12:29

is actually that Lammon leaked information to

12:31

Channel 7, including

12:33

private messages and recordings. And

12:35

you'll remember in that spotlight

12:38

interview, there were things like conversations

12:40

that happened at 10 that everyone was sort of like,

12:42

how did they get this? Yeah. And we knew there

12:44

was a source and Channel 7 said we protect our

12:46

sources. Lammon has testified under

12:48

oath in court that he did not share

12:50

these documents with Channel 7. He maintains that

12:53

because that is against the law. According

12:56

to Network 10 lawyers, this

12:58

would be an outrageous contempt of court.

13:00

And if it's found to be true, it

13:03

could really impact the damages Lammon is entitled

13:05

to. It could be a whole

13:07

other crime in terms of contempt of court.

13:10

But the other question that people are

13:12

asking is how is any of this

13:14

relevant to the case at hand? Me,

13:17

I'm asking that. I'm confused. Right? Because

13:19

you kind of go, all right, really

13:21

interesting night out for Lammon. I'm reading

13:23

every single detail. Every media organisation is

13:26

covering it. Like it's scandalous. It's outrageous.

13:28

But this is a defamation trial.

13:30

And what do we actually

13:32

discover? And we asked a lawyer about

13:34

this on the project, because that was my

13:37

number one question was like,

13:39

is this defamation about Lammon?

13:42

And what he explained was that

13:44

ultimately a defamation trial is about

13:46

character. And it's about

13:48

going if you've told lies about

13:51

A and B, then

13:53

how can we trust what you've said about C? And

13:56

also it can impact damages. That was a big

13:58

thing and what he's there for. entitled

14:00

to and you know

14:02

the judge is trying to decide here

14:04

whose version of events he trusts. So

14:07

it's certainly an interesting choice when you're

14:09

trying to convince people of your innocence,

14:11

as Bruce Lehman was with that interview,

14:13

to actively

14:16

partake in according to this

14:18

affidavit, initiate illegal

14:20

drugs and the use of sex workers

14:23

now using sex workers I don't believe

14:25

as illegal. Not quite across

14:27

that but no one's suggesting that that's a crime

14:29

but it does speak to character. Absolutely

14:32

and if he is found that he

14:35

had leaked those messages then what happens?

14:37

Well that could be a whole other

14:39

case and I've asked exactly that I'm

14:41

like then what happens because they're like

14:43

potentially it could be really serious it

14:45

probably won't in terms of it being

14:47

like an apology or something like that

14:50

in court. So the reason that he

14:52

had all those messages to leak and all that information

14:54

as it has been alleged is

14:57

that in the course of the

14:59

criminal case that happened and was

15:01

then abandoned due to jury misconduct

15:03

so he was not found not

15:05

guilty but he also wasn't found

15:07

guilty and there will not be

15:09

another criminal trial but there's something

15:11

called discovery whereby both the defense

15:13

and the prosecution gathers everything they

15:15

gather text messages they gather computer

15:17

records they gather emails they gather

15:19

any recordings anything that's relevant or

15:21

that they believe could be relevant

15:23

to the case and of all

15:26

of the thousands of hours and

15:28

millions of words and documents

15:30

that they collected only

15:33

a very small part of those was

15:36

relevant and used in that trial so

15:38

the rest of it was not meant

15:40

to be used for anything and yet

15:43

spotlight broadcast them you

15:46

know because you might be confused it's like why am I reading all

15:48

these you just feel like every

15:50

time you go anywhere need is because you feel

15:52

like you want to have a shower why am

15:54

I reading text messages between an alleged rape victim

15:56

and her ex-boyfriend or her current

15:58

partner why am I listening listening to behind

16:00

the scenes conversations of an interview. I

16:03

mean, we've all thought about it in terms of a

16:05

workplace, right? Because it's like, if you and I were

16:07

being recorded, if us three were being recorded in a-

16:10

She'd been like on a podcast. Oh, a great now. On

16:13

a meeting. And I said something flippantly. Yeah. There

16:16

wasn't very favorable about someone outside the room. And then

16:18

that was broadcast in a courtroom. It's like, what relevance

16:20

is that to the actual court case? So I've been

16:22

looking at it going, why do I know any of

16:24

this? So the question back to the question that you

16:27

had about why, what's going on, who is this guy?

16:29

How is he relevant to this whole case? I don't understand.

16:33

You can submit an affidavit to the

16:35

court, which then becomes public under

16:38

privilege. So you can't be sued for what

16:40

you say in that affidavit

16:43

because it's under legal privilege.

16:46

So it was suggested by the

16:48

judge in this defamation case, Justice

16:50

Lee, that this

16:52

was about score settling between

16:54

Taylor Auerbach and his former

16:56

employers at Channel 7. And

17:00

I mean, the number of people whose

17:02

reputations and lives has been dragged into

17:04

this, it's quite

17:06

extraordinary and really disturbing. And

17:08

you can't help

17:10

but think about where it all started

17:12

and how it all started and how

17:14

far we've come. Yeah. And

17:16

how far it is, exactly. And if this is true, I mean,

17:18

this has been covered internationally. This has been covered in the UK

17:21

and in the US. And it's an

17:23

absolute indictment on the state of

17:25

Australian media. When you read this

17:27

story... Oh, that part, the

17:29

expenses and stuff. That's kind of the way

17:32

things used to be in a

17:34

certain type of journalism, that sort of cowboy,

17:37

very alpha male. What's interesting about all of

17:39

this is women couldn't be

17:41

a part of that. That's exactly it. So

17:43

when you go back to what this case

17:45

is about, which is about the boys club of

17:47

Parliament House and playing golf and

17:49

eating steak. It's workers and eating steak, big

17:52

bender nights out and big drinking. It says

17:54

a lot about where we're at. And I

17:56

think that... It says a lot about what

17:58

we thought we'd left. behind but not

18:00

everywhere? To keep across the details of this

18:03

case, and there are just so, by the

18:05

time you listen to this, there's probably more

18:07

details that have come out. It's possible that

18:09

we're gonna have a verdict this week. We're

18:11

not sure yet, but if you want to

18:14

keep across the details, tune into our daily

18:16

podcast, The Quickie, a link to The Quickie

18:18

is in the show notes. Motha

18:23

Mia out loud! Australian

18:26

actress, Isla Fisher, has posted an Instagram story

18:28

over the weekend of a picture of her

18:30

and her husband, who's also a famous actor,

18:32

Sasha Baron Cohen, of them both wearing tennis

18:34

outfits, I wanna say. I saw it and

18:36

I was like, oh, throwback, so cute! I

18:38

thought it was a cute kind of, I

18:40

didn't read the text, it said. Oh yeah,

18:42

yeah, yeah, you missed the text completely. There

18:45

was a big paragraph of text on the image though,

18:47

and it said, after a long

18:49

tennis match lasting over 20 years, we

18:52

are finally putting our rackets down. In

18:54

2023, we jointly filed to end

18:57

our marriage. We have always prioritized our privacy

18:59

and have been quietly working through this change.

19:02

We forever share in our devotion

19:04

and our love for our children.

19:06

We sincerely appreciate your respecting our

19:08

family's wish for privacy. So

19:10

many questions. So many questions. So I wanna

19:12

come back to the Instagram story because I

19:14

have so much to say on it as

19:16

kind of a standalone announcement, but

19:19

we can't ignore the timing of

19:21

posting this Instagram story. So Sacha

19:23

Baron Cohen has been across everyone's

19:26

radar in the past week due

19:28

to another Australian, not for good

19:30

reasons, another Australian actress, Rebel Wilson,

19:32

she's writing an upcoming memoir and

19:35

she has accused him of sexually

19:37

harassing her on set in one

19:39

chapter. Now Rebel's memoir has

19:41

halted publishing in Australia. It's already published in

19:43

the US, it was published last week. There's

19:45

a new date to publish in the UK,

19:47

which is the 25th of April, but

19:50

there's been no announcement of a published date in

19:52

Australia. Her publisher HarperCollins has

19:54

said that they are holding the

19:56

published date to better coincide with

19:58

her Australian press tour. However, Rebel

20:00

went on Instagram stories as well

20:03

and she said that halting has been

20:05

delayed by asshole, but not for long.

20:08

Because she referred to him as

20:11

the asshole that she writes. I don't even know

20:13

if she names him in it. It's just a

20:15

shit show. Is it not? It's crazy. It's been

20:17

the only thing that has been like on my

20:19

radar for the past two weeks consistently. She

20:21

originally referred to him in an Instagram

20:23

story saying the person I'm talking about

20:25

is Sacha Baron Cohen, which I don't

20:27

think any celebrity ever does. So

20:30

take us through, obviously

20:32

the timing made this story massive

20:36

when they're not usually

20:38

a big celebrity couple before this

20:40

week. There's never been any scandal

20:42

around them. They have always

20:44

been very private. They never confirmed that they

20:46

were dating. They never confirmed any of her

20:49

pregnancies. I don't think they confirmed ever that

20:51

they gave birth to a child or when

20:53

they got married. They're super private. They

20:56

don't walk red carpets together, I don't think,

20:58

or do interviews, talk about each other much

21:00

in interviews. What's

21:02

going on with the timing?

21:05

So the timing is very interesting

21:07

because obviously Isla Fisher is also

21:10

Australian and a very prominent

21:12

actress. She was also in that movie, Grimmsby,

21:14

wasn't she? Yes, she was. With Rebel and

21:16

Sacha Baron Cohen. Yeah, and I think everyone

21:18

really loved hers and Sacha

21:20

Baron Cohen's relationship because they were

21:23

so private, especially the Australian

21:25

public. I don't think they like celebrities when

21:27

they're really loud about their relationship because

21:29

I feel like if that couple was loud

21:31

about it, people wouldn't have really respected them

21:33

because they're so different. If you look at the

21:36

movies he does compared to the movies she does,

21:38

they're so different in the way they act

21:40

and their demeanor. I think everyone's found it so

21:42

interesting that they actually get along and they've been

21:45

together for so long. What's your

21:47

analysis of the way it was

21:49

announced? It was everything from the picture

21:51

they chose to the tone to the very telling

21:54

in 2023. It

21:57

didn't happen yesterday. Correct. It happened

21:59

last year. to me about your analysis of

22:01

why they did all of it. Subtext please.

22:03

Firstly, I thought the Instagram story was a

22:05

bit weird because that's only up for 24

22:08

hours. So it's like she wanted to

22:10

just say it and then to disappear and no one ever

22:12

talk about it again. I also

22:14

think someone has really probably her publicist

22:17

or her agent has worded this for

22:19

her because it has a lot of

22:21

American spelling in it and

22:23

she hasn't corrected that. It's not Australian.

22:25

Oh, that's interesting. Also, just the way

22:28

the wording made it seem so trivial,

22:30

like we're putting our rackets down. It's

22:32

not always the way. Yeah, the last sentence.

22:34

What did you think? Because I mean, usually

22:37

the way if you really want to be

22:39

quiet about something, there's the well-worn path of

22:41

doing something on your notes app, you

22:43

pop it in your stories or you pop it

22:45

on the grid. Or like a black background with

22:48

white text. And that's low key. You

22:50

know, this way of doing it reminds me of when

22:52

Gwyneth Paltrow and Chris Martin did it and they posted

22:54

a photo of themselves together, which is one of the

22:57

only photos because they never were photographed together. It was

22:59

the two of them remember sitting on the grass. I

23:01

think she was wearing a yellow dress. How do I remember

23:03

this? And it became iconic

23:05

and got so much more attention because suddenly

23:07

everybody's got an image to run with their

23:09

story, right? Saying they

23:11

wanted privacy but doing it in this way

23:14

with the gag and the photo ensured that

23:18

it would get much more

23:20

of a widespread run than it

23:22

would have otherwise. And I also noted

23:25

that it was a great photo of her,

23:27

not such a great photo of him. And

23:29

the text was all across him. So

23:31

I read it even though it was kind of that jokey

23:33

vibe. But I

23:35

think that's just a millennial thing. Is it? I

23:38

feel like she's been definitely driving this.

23:41

I reckon that they had more

23:43

meetings and more negotiations

23:45

over this tile than they did

23:47

about the divorce. So

23:49

what's happened is Isla Fisher is

23:52

like, I am announcing it. If you

23:54

are tainting my image, I want to read

23:56

myself of that. People are asking me

23:58

to comment. You're not even my husband. The first

24:00

thing I thought, oh, this puts Isla Fisher

24:02

in a really difficult position, doesn't it? So

24:05

she's gone, I want to announce it, right? And I

24:07

reckon Isla Fisher wanted to do the on black statement,

24:10

right? But then, Sacha Baron-Kralin's

24:12

like, we need to make this look

24:14

amicable. It would ruin his

24:17

image if it looked like a... Works

24:19

for him. Yes, exactly right. So it

24:21

seems like this incredible negotiation. She clearly wanted

24:23

to say it was last year. He

24:26

said, can we make it look fun and lighthearted

24:28

and like a picture of us so that it's

24:30

clear that we don't hate each other? And I

24:32

think he would also want it to make it

24:35

look like last year because otherwise... Yes, it looks

24:37

like she's seen the allegations and gone... Exactly. It's

24:40

better for both of them to try and make

24:42

it look like it had nothing to do with Rebel.

24:44

And of course, we'll never know whether it did or

24:46

whether it didn't, but they can't make

24:48

up that they've been split since last

24:50

year. That image didn't

24:53

make it look like... So for example, and this

24:55

is a very, very imperfect comparison, but obviously Harvey

24:57

Weinstein, like the allegations came out about him and

24:59

him and his wife split. And it was very

25:01

clear in all of that that she was going,

25:04

yuck, like, I don't want anything to do with...

25:06

That's not what this was. The

25:08

indication was that there's still mutual respect and

25:10

it's not like I'm hanging my husband out

25:12

to dry because I completely agree. That's very

25:15

true. In saying that, she said nothing. We

25:17

know in the past when there's been

25:19

allegations made by a man in a heterosexual

25:21

partnership, the woman will sometimes come out and

25:24

defend him. They don't even have to be

25:26

in a partnership. Remember in Sex and the

25:28

City when Big went down and there

25:31

were all those accusations against him

25:33

and the three women on the

25:35

show had to give a statement.

25:37

What's your position on this? And

25:39

it's so unfair that women have

25:42

to be answerable to accusations

25:44

about the men in their lives, but

25:47

I can see why she wanted to have distance. What

25:49

do you reckon? Do you reckon she's played this

25:51

well? Like what would you... Game set

25:53

match. Yeah. I love

25:56

it. It's hard because it's like what you said when

25:58

people first saw that photo. I don't think anyone

26:00

really... got the text and then the text was read

26:02

as like an afterthought. Yeah. As

26:04

in like, oh, and they're divorced. I think

26:06

everyone saw the timing. Like it's so hard

26:08

to ignore like that she decided to post

26:11

this. And I think he was like,

26:13

please, can we just wait, can we just wait, can we just

26:15

wait, can we just wait till this blows over? Yeah, 100%. I

26:18

think any man would have done that. But

26:20

I also think that the 2023 aspect didn't

26:22

work in the way that she wanted it

26:24

to work. I think

26:26

it just made the timing even more

26:28

weird about posting it now. Because if

26:30

you got divorced in 2023, you would have. No,

26:33

they wouldn't have though, because their form

26:35

is always you don't go public. They

26:38

never have. They're not like a really

26:40

public couple who suddenly decided this isn't

26:42

complete keeping with the way they've conducted

26:44

their relationship. They've announced nothing. But what

26:46

if they wanted to date someone else?

26:49

I mean, then maybe, but they're not the

26:51

kind of celebrities that there are a lot

26:53

of gossip items written about or that are

26:55

papped. I mean, they're pretty under the radar.

26:58

Neither of them really speaking about their personal

27:01

life. So before this, her stars

27:03

very much still on the ascent. She's

27:05

doing lots of stuff. Their three

27:07

children are a bit older. I think they've got like a 17

27:10

year old, 13 year old and nine year

27:12

old or something, two daughters and a son. I

27:15

don't know what he's doing. But I

27:17

was responding and denying allegations.

27:20

The last I heard was when he got

27:22

really angry about he was meant to be

27:24

in Rami Malek's Bohemian Rhapsody as Freddie Mercury.

27:27

But he wanted to make it bigger, like

27:29

with all the cocaine and sex scenes and

27:31

stuff like that. Everyone was like,

27:33

no, that's too much because the band who

27:35

are producing it were like, no, we don't

27:38

want that. I think also he was doing

27:40

a bit of dramatic acting. Yeah, he was

27:42

maybe a nominated. Yeah, he was doing like

27:44

a character actor part that was like not

27:46

the characters that he usually plays in that

27:48

broad comedy that you

27:50

feel like you sort of couldn't make that

27:52

comedy anymore, that the Borat, Chris Lilly style

27:55

character based. And when I called him in

27:57

the spy, which is like a Netflix series,

27:59

he's a. brilliant actor. I think

28:02

if he didn't do the whole

28:04

comedy shtick, he could have been

28:06

a really serious Oscar-nominated actor. That's

28:08

what I feel like everyone is

28:11

kind of grieving in Australia was

28:13

the stark difference between Ayla and

28:15

Sacha Baron Cohen being able to

28:17

work together, be together for over

28:19

20 years, and even that doesn't

28:21

work. But I mean, why is

28:23

20 years together and three children

28:25

considered a failure? What are we

28:27

grieving for? Isn't that pretty amazing?

28:30

Long tennis match, as they said. He's

28:32

a long tennis match. I don't know.

28:34

I think I'm grieving the

28:36

aspect that differences can

28:39

coexist. Ah, yes, no, but

28:41

they can for a time. And then

28:43

who knows what happened? Every

28:47

Tuesday and Thursday, we drop new segments

28:49

of Mum Mia! Out Loud just for

28:51

Mum Mia! subscribers. Follow the

28:53

link in the show notes to get your daily

28:55

dose of Out Loud and a big thank you

28:57

to all our current subscribers. As

29:08

a comedic duo, the inspired

29:10

unemployed pulled a prank at

29:12

an event called Sydney's Love

29:15

Unboxed, which featured a

29:17

panel of notable Australian feminist Antoinette

29:19

Latouf, Clementine Ford and Yumi

29:21

Stines. And people were

29:24

crying and also angry afterwards.

29:27

The inspired unemployed can kind of be explained

29:29

to people who might not be familiar with

29:31

them as this generation's the Chaser. I don't

29:33

know if you remember the Chaser N. They

29:35

were a group of friends from uni, a

29:38

group of guys. They'd sort of film

29:40

themselves doing things like snuggling meat into events

29:43

to see what the sniffer dogs would do.

29:45

What's the most famous thing that they did,

29:47

Jessie? The thing with the inspired unemployed is

29:49

that they didn't begin with pranks. They would

29:51

do dances. It was all very wholesome. They

29:53

would, you know, go South Coast. That's pretty.

29:57

And everyone loved it. And it wasn't until

29:59

they started. on the show, the Australian

30:01

version of the Impractical Jokers, which

30:03

is based on an American show,

30:05

since they started to prank. OK.

30:07

I'm not a fan of pranks.

30:09

I've never liked pranks because I

30:11

always feel they're always at the

30:13

expense of someone. And I also

30:15

just I hate watching people get

30:17

embarrassed or awkward things, but there's

30:20

a long tradition of it. So

30:22

what happened last week? Well, although

30:24

the stunt was revealed to be a

30:26

skit for the second season of the

30:28

Impractical Jokers, people who

30:31

attended the event, which was mostly

30:33

women, were lost pretty outrage because

30:35

according to the event's ticket page,

30:37

it was called Love Unboxed. It

30:39

was aimed to be an evening

30:41

of insightful discourse and thought provoking

30:43

discussion on the intricacies of sex,

30:45

love, relationships and marriage. And

30:47

the description of the event also mentioned that

30:49

a guest would be involved in the conversation.

30:51

This event will also feature a special guest,

30:53

often his perspective as a young male. And

30:56

the special guest was revealed to be Jack Steele, who

30:58

is one of the founding members of the Inspired

31:01

Unemployed. Now, these guys are worth an

31:03

absolute ton. They have I think their

31:05

own beer. They have all these products.

31:07

They are incredibly successful content

31:09

creators. And generally I find this

31:11

stuff really funny. So

31:13

the event was free. Nobody had to

31:15

pay for the tickets. But what happened

31:17

was they were talking about

31:20

issues around the male perspective, why it

31:22

was important. They were asking him what

31:24

feminism meant to him. There

31:26

were questions surrounding consent. And

31:29

he had an earpiece and the gag

31:31

was Ellen DeGeneres does

31:33

something similar. He had, I guess, the

31:36

other members of his Inspired

31:38

Unemployed, they were feeding questions into his

31:40

ears or answers. And he had to

31:42

say whatever they told him

31:44

to say. So he

31:46

said things like, yeah, chicks dig consent. And

31:49

then another time he said, I really like

31:51

girl writers when he was asked his opinion

31:53

on gender based issues. So it was meant

31:55

to be deliberately really, really cringe. But

31:58

then people started. getting upset and

32:01

as people started to leave, he

32:04

stood up and started to get a little bit

32:06

uncomfortable and he apologized to the hundred people in

32:08

attendance. He actually said, I'm very sorry guys, I

32:10

look like a fuckwit and you all hate me.

32:12

From the bottom of my heart, I'm sorry. And

32:14

he did sound genuinely very sorry and mortified. The

32:17

three women that were still on the panel, they

32:19

stayed and they, I don't think they apologized and

32:22

I don't think they've acknowledged it on their

32:25

socials but they stayed for another hour and

32:27

answered questions. But all the questions then turned

32:29

into questions and criticisms of the actual event

32:31

and people in the audience complained that they

32:33

hadn't been asked for their consent. Someone

32:36

left an Instagram comment on

32:38

Clementine Ford's page saying the woman

32:41

behind me was crying, people

32:43

were very triggered. It

32:46

sounds like a big hot mess. M, a

32:48

prank's funny and who was the joke on?

32:51

I'm very similar to you. I don't find

32:53

pranks funny because that's just not my sense

32:55

of humor. But I do think there's a

32:57

difference between a prank and a trick. And

33:00

I think what they did at that event was a trick.

33:02

It felt very cunning and deceptive.

33:04

And I think what they do with

33:06

pranks, because it is quite daunting to

33:08

have a practical joke show like that,

33:11

especially in this kind of climate where

33:13

everyone, you have to get like

33:15

everyone's consent for everything. All the first question is

33:17

that did the women know what was going on?

33:19

Now, Jesse, you've been on an inspired, unemployed show.

33:23

What's the process? I was

33:25

on there with Matt Ford, the other

33:27

guy who came on, and that prank

33:30

was very clearly he was the butt

33:32

of the joke. He was so

33:34

uncomfortable and he had someone in his

33:36

ear telling him how to answer questions.

33:39

It was... Did you have to sign

33:41

a release or something? Yes, I had to sign a

33:43

release. I wish I had the release, right? Because what

33:45

I want to know is if on that release it

33:47

said, I can't talk about it

33:49

until it comes out. Because I wonder if the

33:51

reason those three women haven't said anything is because

33:54

maybe they're legally not allowed to. Did you get paid?

33:56

No. I didn't get paid. You

33:58

don't get paid for it. I didn't get paid. I did, but I

34:00

didn't get paid. He didn't just have a part

34:02

of it. The whole of it was set up

34:04

to be like a mock panel

34:07

for the show, right? And

34:09

he was the gag, meant to be the gag through

34:11

the whole thing until the audience basically rioted and he

34:13

had to leave. Yes. And he

34:15

looked mortified. And we should say this event wasn't

34:17

totally filmed, so we've only got bits and pieces,

34:19

but that is our sense of thing. And

34:22

would you have been mad if you're in the audience? I

34:24

would have been mad just for my time

34:26

being wasted. And then also what I, not

34:28

more mad, but more embarrassed because I'm doing

34:31

this for a show.

34:33

When you're in kind of those

34:35

big like theater events, you are

34:37

so encapsulated by what's happening on

34:39

stage. So you don't actually quite

34:42

remember like how you reacted to certain things.

34:45

And I can just imagine the women

34:47

in that audience knowing that their expressions

34:50

are going to be plastered on a

34:52

television show forever, whether they are looking

34:54

upset or annoyed or angry. And

34:57

it happened so often, like when I was on

34:59

SBS Insights, like if I was reacting to someone's

35:01

story, they would take my reaction and put it

35:03

on someone else's story. Oh, yeah.

35:05

And that's what would freak me out, like

35:07

knowing that I could potentially be like looking

35:10

like upset or crying or just having a

35:12

bad day and just having like a bit...

35:14

I have a rest in Bish Bay. Because

35:16

you're just listening and that could be then

35:18

taken. And I think the historical context of

35:20

this is firstly, we've got the trope of

35:22

the humorless feminist who can't take

35:25

a joke. But

35:27

they were in it, right? Well, the audience.

35:29

So this is the thing, right? I'm

35:32

being cancelled online for saying that I think they're

35:34

funny, right? Everyone's going, it's not funny. It's not

35:36

funny. I'll start by saying, I don't think anyone

35:38

gets to decide objectively what is and isn't funny.

35:41

They clearly have an audience. I don't

35:43

think it's any of us. I probably think it's

35:45

young men who like pranks.

35:47

I don't like pranks. They make me

35:49

cringe. They make me feel uncomfortable. But

35:51

that is their audience and it clearly

35:53

works for them. They're objectively incredibly successful.

35:55

Yes. And Paramount Plus and them,

35:58

whatever they set out to do, cheer. It

36:00

worked. This

36:02

is getting global attention.

36:05

Everyone's going to watch this episode. Brilliant

36:07

prank. Brilliant prank. The

36:09

question is the people

36:12

who went, who were

36:14

lured there by accomplished feminists who

36:16

they trust and who they wanted

36:18

to hear from. The

36:20

question to me is the exchange

36:22

between them and their audience. It

36:26

was free. I think that's an important point.

36:28

We know that women, they don't have a lot

36:30

of time, the average woman. It's like if you've

36:32

got a babysitter. They thought they were going for

36:35

one thing and then they didn't get that thing.

36:37

So would it be like us going, with

36:39

his not word dream out loud, we're

36:41

doing a free show, come watch us at a

36:43

free show, and then us agreeing with

36:46

the inspired unemployed, let's play

36:48

a trick on our audience. Yeah. And then what we've

36:50

done, there was a great article in the Sydney Morning

36:52

Herald by Katie Hall

36:54

about this. She said, you've just given a man

36:58

making a prank, you've just given him a free audience. So

37:00

none of these women were paid for their time. They just

37:02

showed up and now they are the butt of the joke.

37:04

In what I did with them, I didn't feel like the

37:06

butt of the joke. In this, I

37:08

was thinking about it. Sorry, who was the butt

37:10

of the joke? Not the women on the stage

37:13

because those three women were in on it. Were

37:15

in on it. Oh, the audience. Audience. Were

37:17

the butt of the joke. Because they, historically,

37:19

their pranks, them themselves were the butt

37:21

of the joke, putting each other into

37:23

uncomfortable situations and everyone else was just

37:25

going along with the ride. But

37:28

in this case, it was the audience that was the butt

37:30

of the joke. It was the audience because the way... As

37:32

well as the inspired unemployed guy. Thinking about

37:34

this from a television perspective and the way you're going to film

37:37

it, the humor comes from

37:39

the crying woman. It comes from women getting

37:41

up and leaving. It comes from outrage. And

37:43

then who laughed at it? All the young men

37:45

going, I knew feminists couldn't take a joke.

37:48

Like look at them taking themselves so seriously. Well,

37:50

they went thinking that they were going to have

37:53

this space to talk about exciting ideas

37:56

that would inspire them and they might

37:58

have invited people along. and they were

38:00

feeling a little bit vulnerable. And

38:03

then they got offended and went, you've

38:05

just wasted my time. And

38:07

clearly those three women didn't see this

38:10

going the way it went. And

38:13

I wouldn't wish the last few

38:15

days that those women have had on anyone because

38:17

I can't imagine the shit they're getting. And

38:19

the feeling of betraying your audience would be

38:21

awful. I watched those clips of people standing

38:23

up and saying, this is an issue of

38:25

consent. You've tricked us and everyone clapping. And

38:27

I could see the look on their faces

38:30

and I just went, oh, this is awful.

38:33

But I think there is a feeling. Can

38:35

they just say yes? They did say, because

38:37

the two cool guys who are in touch

38:39

with Millennials and Gen Z want to do

38:41

this really cool, fun thing. So of course

38:44

you're going to say yes. And I

38:46

think we also forget that the inspired

38:48

unemployed, yes, that Practical Joke Show I

38:50

think is mainly men watching it, but

38:52

their socials is very split between women

38:54

and men following them. And

38:56

I think what this is going to

38:58

do is completely show that split of

39:00

their audience because there are men commenting

39:02

of women talking about this experience and

39:04

men going, making feminists mad is always

39:06

funny. So you're seeing that like divide

39:08

on their socials between the misogynistic men

39:11

who follow them and the women who

39:13

generally thought they were funny and like

39:15

were for everyone. So the feminists

39:17

and look, everyone makes mistakes, Lord

39:19

knows. But

39:21

the feminists to hang

39:24

with the cool guys bought

39:26

into every negative trope about feminism, maybe they don't

39:28

care. Well, this is the thing. I don't think

39:30

they saw it going that way, but the reason

39:32

they saw it going is a lot of try

39:34

to work out because I keep going back through

39:37

it. What was

39:39

their best case scenario? The

39:41

most gracious reading is that they thought their

39:43

audience would find it funny and that once

39:45

the prank was shown that they would think

39:48

it was funny. And I think a lot of people are going,

39:50

I can't see how you thought that would be the case. I

39:53

feel like the Venn diagram of people who

39:55

follow those three women and

39:57

people who like the inspired.

40:00

unemployed and practical jokes

40:03

would not have a lot of crossover. It wouldn't

40:05

have a lot of crossover and that's why it

40:07

was the perfect prank for the inspired unemployed and

40:09

a terrible move for those three women. And I

40:11

think the reason as well that this story won't

40:14

go away is because of the profound

40:16

irony that one of the women on that panel, if

40:19

this had happened to any other

40:21

feminist, I can hear the

40:23

way that it would be covered. And

40:26

so there is this pull that I'm feeling within

40:28

myself to be like, time's

40:30

a blast. But that's not what I

40:32

want to do and I genuinely feel

40:34

really sorry for people who have made

40:36

an error. What do you think is

40:38

going to happen with the episode when it airs? So it's 100% people

40:40

like oh it won't air. I'm

40:42

like it will absolutely go

40:45

viral on TikTok and the

40:47

audience is going to be so pissed. I'm going

40:49

to be interested in the subject of consent, signing

40:52

a film release form for one thing and being

40:54

filmed for another. Clearly Paramount past

40:56

knew exactly what they were doing with the things

40:58

but I think to me that

41:00

is a really interesting discussion of consent because

41:02

they did not consent to be in that show and

41:04

now they are making money for a whole lot of

41:06

guys who had a joke to make.

41:10

How loud is? If you haven't had enough of

41:12

us last week we got personal with you. We

41:14

did another Ask If Anything episode where we talked

41:16

about some of the things we've regretted saying on

41:18

the podcast. I thought of 15 others. I

41:20

reckon I said 10 things today I regret. At least.

41:22

I reckon we should do a subs episode on the

41:24

staff we take back today. There's

41:27

a link to that episode in the show notes. Thank

41:29

you for listening to Australia's number one news and

41:32

pop culture show. This episode was

41:34

produced by Emmeline Gazellas. The assistant

41:36

producer is Tally Blackman with audio

41:38

production by Leah Porges. We'll be

41:40

back in your ears tomorrow. Bye.

41:43

See ya. Bye. Shout

41:45

out to any Mamma Mia subscribers listening. If you

41:47

love the show and want to support us

41:49

as well, subscribing to Mamma Mia is the

41:51

very best way to do so. There is

41:53

a link in the episode description. you