Atmosphere at LA protest after first night of curfew
ABC Americas editor John Lyons describes the tensions between authorities and protesters outside a federal detention centre in Los Angeles.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Advertiser
an hour ago
- The Advertiser
Yes, audiences have changed. But this is destroying a core tenet of news
This is all our fault. We stopped watching Q+A. We stopped watching The Project. We've stopped appointment television unless it's the footy. We've changed. As a result, broadcasters, in an attempt to keep audiences, change what they're offering us. We know The Project lost its way, but believe me, when it started out, it felt young and fresh, brimming with energy. Did we start to disengage after it lost Charlie Pickering? Did we lose our sense of humour? Or did they lose their understanding of what we needed to know and how much that's changed? How much have we really changed? I'm not the right person to answer this because I listen, read and watch news all day, every day. But I've got some insights into what's going on at the ABC this week and it makes me want to cry. This week, the ABC announced it would end its panel show Q+A after 18 years. Sure. Despite the fact that ratings for the program, now hosted by Patricia Karvelas, had increased. She and her team, including the remarkable executive producer Eliza Harvey, kept trying different things. So is it about the money? Probably. I think about 10 people will lose their jobs from that program alone, including some who are on the ABC's notorious casual contracts cycle. We don't need to keep the same thing forever, but it's weird that both its panel shows have now gone. Let us hope and pray we don't get served up even more Hard Quiz or the bizarrely unentertaining House of Games, which now leads us into the news. I can't think of a less suitable entrée. Marks continues in his email: "Upcoming initiatives in news include investing in producing additional high-impact premium news documentary programs and embedding Your Say as a permanent initiative." Much as I love Your Say, I'm not sure it's all that. You answer various online questions and then somehow that's turned into filler, not attached to real humans. As you know, no need to be honest with a form - and it kind of plays with us, to be more conservative, to be more progressive, to see where it lands. Is it fun? Sure. Is it truly meaningful? Doubt that so much. Feels like phony participation. Falls far short. I remember my various editors over various decades telling me that the best way of representing what real people felt was to include real people, real names, real lives. Anyhow, I've asked various staff members at the ABC if they can decode Marks's email to all staff. Most have backed away politely. They say they don't really have a clue what most of it means. What they do know is that 40 staff will be made redundant, and 10 short-term contracts will be terminated early. Weirdly, in the more detailed change proposal, the ABC is backing away from digital and dumping innovation. Do we know any other 21st century organisation doing that? I'm shocked Marks thinks he can embed innovation in every unit. Real inventive thinking takes time, space and quiet. It is the exact opposite of what daily media production requires. A couple of insiders have said to me that these changes show a desire by Marks to strut his stuff. What he's doing, they say, is clawing resources (money, people) into television, something he actually knows about. "He's building a war chest for TV," says one source. The internal email says: "The objective is to enhance our TV slate in volume and ambition, increase our capacity to commission more high-value journalism, enable more original podcasting and put targeted resources into our metropolitan audio teams." Yeah, translated, TV war chest. The ABC already does brilliant, high-value journalism. Back the people you already employ. Fund more episodes of Four Corners. Give more staff to news, especially radio news and current affairs. The audience cannot possibly tolerate the barely changed iterations of news stories on AM, The World Today and PM. These are three flagships (and I listen as if news was my religion) and they should be treated that way. Now, going back to Marks's email to staff. See how TV comes first in that list. He's also decided to rename the ABC's Content division as ABC Screen, which will be led by Jennifer Collins. This might be the one bit of good news in the entire shemozzle. Here's an array of adjectives used by ABC employees to describe Collins: respected, no bullshit, pragmatic. And, doesn't interfere in tiny decisions. READ MORE: Apparently, she was overlooked when they appointed Chris Oliver-Taylor (he's the one who carried the can on the Antoinette Lattouf fiasco, but there were others, there were others). Bet ABC management very sorry about that now. Collins has had a long career at the ABC and a short career in commercial screen (as we seem to be calling television now) and has a double degree in television and psychology. She'll need that, not just in thinking about how audiences work, but in thinking about how her boss works. So many people have described Hugh Marks to me as a micromanager who needs more trust in the people who work for him. Speaking of micromanagers. In April, the then-newish host of the ABC's Media Watch, Linton Besser and his team, exposed Kim Williams as an apparently activist chair with no business running the most important media institution in the country. Micromanaging madly. And badly. Trying to leverage his status to influence who appeared on the national broadcaster. At the time, Marks said: "I am vigilant to ensure the proper delineation of responsibility between the board and management, and will act appropriately to ensure the best interests of the ABC, its people and audiences as we move forward." So far, no evidence we are moving forward. Just more bad news. More redundancies. No evidence that any of the most senior folks at the ABC or Ten have any idea what we, the listeners and watchers, really want. Maybe we don't know either. There's only so many episodes of Shrinking. This is all our fault. We stopped watching Q+A. We stopped watching The Project. We've stopped appointment television unless it's the footy. We've changed. As a result, broadcasters, in an attempt to keep audiences, change what they're offering us. We know The Project lost its way, but believe me, when it started out, it felt young and fresh, brimming with energy. Did we start to disengage after it lost Charlie Pickering? Did we lose our sense of humour? Or did they lose their understanding of what we needed to know and how much that's changed? How much have we really changed? I'm not the right person to answer this because I listen, read and watch news all day, every day. But I've got some insights into what's going on at the ABC this week and it makes me want to cry. This week, the ABC announced it would end its panel show Q+A after 18 years. Sure. Despite the fact that ratings for the program, now hosted by Patricia Karvelas, had increased. She and her team, including the remarkable executive producer Eliza Harvey, kept trying different things. So is it about the money? Probably. I think about 10 people will lose their jobs from that program alone, including some who are on the ABC's notorious casual contracts cycle. We don't need to keep the same thing forever, but it's weird that both its panel shows have now gone. Let us hope and pray we don't get served up even more Hard Quiz or the bizarrely unentertaining House of Games, which now leads us into the news. I can't think of a less suitable entrée. Marks continues in his email: "Upcoming initiatives in news include investing in producing additional high-impact premium news documentary programs and embedding Your Say as a permanent initiative." Much as I love Your Say, I'm not sure it's all that. You answer various online questions and then somehow that's turned into filler, not attached to real humans. As you know, no need to be honest with a form - and it kind of plays with us, to be more conservative, to be more progressive, to see where it lands. Is it fun? Sure. Is it truly meaningful? Doubt that so much. Feels like phony participation. Falls far short. I remember my various editors over various decades telling me that the best way of representing what real people felt was to include real people, real names, real lives. Anyhow, I've asked various staff members at the ABC if they can decode Marks's email to all staff. Most have backed away politely. They say they don't really have a clue what most of it means. What they do know is that 40 staff will be made redundant, and 10 short-term contracts will be terminated early. Weirdly, in the more detailed change proposal, the ABC is backing away from digital and dumping innovation. Do we know any other 21st century organisation doing that? I'm shocked Marks thinks he can embed innovation in every unit. Real inventive thinking takes time, space and quiet. It is the exact opposite of what daily media production requires. A couple of insiders have said to me that these changes show a desire by Marks to strut his stuff. What he's doing, they say, is clawing resources (money, people) into television, something he actually knows about. "He's building a war chest for TV," says one source. The internal email says: "The objective is to enhance our TV slate in volume and ambition, increase our capacity to commission more high-value journalism, enable more original podcasting and put targeted resources into our metropolitan audio teams." Yeah, translated, TV war chest. The ABC already does brilliant, high-value journalism. Back the people you already employ. Fund more episodes of Four Corners. Give more staff to news, especially radio news and current affairs. The audience cannot possibly tolerate the barely changed iterations of news stories on AM, The World Today and PM. These are three flagships (and I listen as if news was my religion) and they should be treated that way. Now, going back to Marks's email to staff. See how TV comes first in that list. He's also decided to rename the ABC's Content division as ABC Screen, which will be led by Jennifer Collins. This might be the one bit of good news in the entire shemozzle. Here's an array of adjectives used by ABC employees to describe Collins: respected, no bullshit, pragmatic. And, doesn't interfere in tiny decisions. READ MORE: Apparently, she was overlooked when they appointed Chris Oliver-Taylor (he's the one who carried the can on the Antoinette Lattouf fiasco, but there were others, there were others). Bet ABC management very sorry about that now. Collins has had a long career at the ABC and a short career in commercial screen (as we seem to be calling television now) and has a double degree in television and psychology. She'll need that, not just in thinking about how audiences work, but in thinking about how her boss works. So many people have described Hugh Marks to me as a micromanager who needs more trust in the people who work for him. Speaking of micromanagers. In April, the then-newish host of the ABC's Media Watch, Linton Besser and his team, exposed Kim Williams as an apparently activist chair with no business running the most important media institution in the country. Micromanaging madly. And badly. Trying to leverage his status to influence who appeared on the national broadcaster. At the time, Marks said: "I am vigilant to ensure the proper delineation of responsibility between the board and management, and will act appropriately to ensure the best interests of the ABC, its people and audiences as we move forward." So far, no evidence we are moving forward. Just more bad news. More redundancies. No evidence that any of the most senior folks at the ABC or Ten have any idea what we, the listeners and watchers, really want. Maybe we don't know either. There's only so many episodes of Shrinking. This is all our fault. We stopped watching Q+A. We stopped watching The Project. We've stopped appointment television unless it's the footy. We've changed. As a result, broadcasters, in an attempt to keep audiences, change what they're offering us. We know The Project lost its way, but believe me, when it started out, it felt young and fresh, brimming with energy. Did we start to disengage after it lost Charlie Pickering? Did we lose our sense of humour? Or did they lose their understanding of what we needed to know and how much that's changed? How much have we really changed? I'm not the right person to answer this because I listen, read and watch news all day, every day. But I've got some insights into what's going on at the ABC this week and it makes me want to cry. This week, the ABC announced it would end its panel show Q+A after 18 years. Sure. Despite the fact that ratings for the program, now hosted by Patricia Karvelas, had increased. She and her team, including the remarkable executive producer Eliza Harvey, kept trying different things. So is it about the money? Probably. I think about 10 people will lose their jobs from that program alone, including some who are on the ABC's notorious casual contracts cycle. We don't need to keep the same thing forever, but it's weird that both its panel shows have now gone. Let us hope and pray we don't get served up even more Hard Quiz or the bizarrely unentertaining House of Games, which now leads us into the news. I can't think of a less suitable entrée. Marks continues in his email: "Upcoming initiatives in news include investing in producing additional high-impact premium news documentary programs and embedding Your Say as a permanent initiative." Much as I love Your Say, I'm not sure it's all that. You answer various online questions and then somehow that's turned into filler, not attached to real humans. As you know, no need to be honest with a form - and it kind of plays with us, to be more conservative, to be more progressive, to see where it lands. Is it fun? Sure. Is it truly meaningful? Doubt that so much. Feels like phony participation. Falls far short. I remember my various editors over various decades telling me that the best way of representing what real people felt was to include real people, real names, real lives. Anyhow, I've asked various staff members at the ABC if they can decode Marks's email to all staff. Most have backed away politely. They say they don't really have a clue what most of it means. What they do know is that 40 staff will be made redundant, and 10 short-term contracts will be terminated early. Weirdly, in the more detailed change proposal, the ABC is backing away from digital and dumping innovation. Do we know any other 21st century organisation doing that? I'm shocked Marks thinks he can embed innovation in every unit. Real inventive thinking takes time, space and quiet. It is the exact opposite of what daily media production requires. A couple of insiders have said to me that these changes show a desire by Marks to strut his stuff. What he's doing, they say, is clawing resources (money, people) into television, something he actually knows about. "He's building a war chest for TV," says one source. The internal email says: "The objective is to enhance our TV slate in volume and ambition, increase our capacity to commission more high-value journalism, enable more original podcasting and put targeted resources into our metropolitan audio teams." Yeah, translated, TV war chest. The ABC already does brilliant, high-value journalism. Back the people you already employ. Fund more episodes of Four Corners. Give more staff to news, especially radio news and current affairs. The audience cannot possibly tolerate the barely changed iterations of news stories on AM, The World Today and PM. These are three flagships (and I listen as if news was my religion) and they should be treated that way. Now, going back to Marks's email to staff. See how TV comes first in that list. He's also decided to rename the ABC's Content division as ABC Screen, which will be led by Jennifer Collins. This might be the one bit of good news in the entire shemozzle. Here's an array of adjectives used by ABC employees to describe Collins: respected, no bullshit, pragmatic. And, doesn't interfere in tiny decisions. READ MORE: Apparently, she was overlooked when they appointed Chris Oliver-Taylor (he's the one who carried the can on the Antoinette Lattouf fiasco, but there were others, there were others). Bet ABC management very sorry about that now. Collins has had a long career at the ABC and a short career in commercial screen (as we seem to be calling television now) and has a double degree in television and psychology. She'll need that, not just in thinking about how audiences work, but in thinking about how her boss works. So many people have described Hugh Marks to me as a micromanager who needs more trust in the people who work for him. Speaking of micromanagers. In April, the then-newish host of the ABC's Media Watch, Linton Besser and his team, exposed Kim Williams as an apparently activist chair with no business running the most important media institution in the country. Micromanaging madly. And badly. Trying to leverage his status to influence who appeared on the national broadcaster. At the time, Marks said: "I am vigilant to ensure the proper delineation of responsibility between the board and management, and will act appropriately to ensure the best interests of the ABC, its people and audiences as we move forward." So far, no evidence we are moving forward. Just more bad news. More redundancies. No evidence that any of the most senior folks at the ABC or Ten have any idea what we, the listeners and watchers, really want. Maybe we don't know either. There's only so many episodes of Shrinking. This is all our fault. We stopped watching Q+A. We stopped watching The Project. We've stopped appointment television unless it's the footy. We've changed. As a result, broadcasters, in an attempt to keep audiences, change what they're offering us. We know The Project lost its way, but believe me, when it started out, it felt young and fresh, brimming with energy. Did we start to disengage after it lost Charlie Pickering? Did we lose our sense of humour? Or did they lose their understanding of what we needed to know and how much that's changed? How much have we really changed? I'm not the right person to answer this because I listen, read and watch news all day, every day. But I've got some insights into what's going on at the ABC this week and it makes me want to cry. This week, the ABC announced it would end its panel show Q+A after 18 years. Sure. Despite the fact that ratings for the program, now hosted by Patricia Karvelas, had increased. She and her team, including the remarkable executive producer Eliza Harvey, kept trying different things. So is it about the money? Probably. I think about 10 people will lose their jobs from that program alone, including some who are on the ABC's notorious casual contracts cycle. We don't need to keep the same thing forever, but it's weird that both its panel shows have now gone. Let us hope and pray we don't get served up even more Hard Quiz or the bizarrely unentertaining House of Games, which now leads us into the news. I can't think of a less suitable entrée. Marks continues in his email: "Upcoming initiatives in news include investing in producing additional high-impact premium news documentary programs and embedding Your Say as a permanent initiative." Much as I love Your Say, I'm not sure it's all that. You answer various online questions and then somehow that's turned into filler, not attached to real humans. As you know, no need to be honest with a form - and it kind of plays with us, to be more conservative, to be more progressive, to see where it lands. Is it fun? Sure. Is it truly meaningful? Doubt that so much. Feels like phony participation. Falls far short. I remember my various editors over various decades telling me that the best way of representing what real people felt was to include real people, real names, real lives. Anyhow, I've asked various staff members at the ABC if they can decode Marks's email to all staff. Most have backed away politely. They say they don't really have a clue what most of it means. What they do know is that 40 staff will be made redundant, and 10 short-term contracts will be terminated early. Weirdly, in the more detailed change proposal, the ABC is backing away from digital and dumping innovation. Do we know any other 21st century organisation doing that? I'm shocked Marks thinks he can embed innovation in every unit. Real inventive thinking takes time, space and quiet. It is the exact opposite of what daily media production requires. A couple of insiders have said to me that these changes show a desire by Marks to strut his stuff. What he's doing, they say, is clawing resources (money, people) into television, something he actually knows about. "He's building a war chest for TV," says one source. The internal email says: "The objective is to enhance our TV slate in volume and ambition, increase our capacity to commission more high-value journalism, enable more original podcasting and put targeted resources into our metropolitan audio teams." Yeah, translated, TV war chest. The ABC already does brilliant, high-value journalism. Back the people you already employ. Fund more episodes of Four Corners. Give more staff to news, especially radio news and current affairs. The audience cannot possibly tolerate the barely changed iterations of news stories on AM, The World Today and PM. These are three flagships (and I listen as if news was my religion) and they should be treated that way. Now, going back to Marks's email to staff. See how TV comes first in that list. He's also decided to rename the ABC's Content division as ABC Screen, which will be led by Jennifer Collins. This might be the one bit of good news in the entire shemozzle. Here's an array of adjectives used by ABC employees to describe Collins: respected, no bullshit, pragmatic. And, doesn't interfere in tiny decisions. READ MORE: Apparently, she was overlooked when they appointed Chris Oliver-Taylor (he's the one who carried the can on the Antoinette Lattouf fiasco, but there were others, there were others). Bet ABC management very sorry about that now. Collins has had a long career at the ABC and a short career in commercial screen (as we seem to be calling television now) and has a double degree in television and psychology. She'll need that, not just in thinking about how audiences work, but in thinking about how her boss works. So many people have described Hugh Marks to me as a micromanager who needs more trust in the people who work for him. Speaking of micromanagers. In April, the then-newish host of the ABC's Media Watch, Linton Besser and his team, exposed Kim Williams as an apparently activist chair with no business running the most important media institution in the country. Micromanaging madly. And badly. Trying to leverage his status to influence who appeared on the national broadcaster. At the time, Marks said: "I am vigilant to ensure the proper delineation of responsibility between the board and management, and will act appropriately to ensure the best interests of the ABC, its people and audiences as we move forward." So far, no evidence we are moving forward. Just more bad news. More redundancies. No evidence that any of the most senior folks at the ABC or Ten have any idea what we, the listeners and watchers, really want. Maybe we don't know either. There's only so many episodes of Shrinking.
News.com.au
an hour ago
- News.com.au
US politics live: Sheriff warns violent protesters ‘we will kill you' as police brace for new wave of mass protests
Hello and welcome back to our live coverage of events in the United States. Much of the focus in American politics remains on law enforcement. The Trump administration's Homeland Security Secretary, Kristi Noem, visited Los Angeles today and held a press conference to discuss the government's deportation drive. Ms Noem heads the department which is responsible for enforcing immigration laws. The deportations are what set off protests in the city, prompting President Donald Trump to call in the National Guard and US Marines against the wishes of local leaders. At one point, as Ms Noem was laying into California Governor Gavin Newsom, one of the state's US senators crashed the media conference and tried to ask her a question. Senator Alex Padilla, who is of course a Democrat, was then shoved out of the room by federal agents as he protested, telling them: 'I'm Senator Alex Padilla, I have questions for the Secretary.' He was forced to his knees, then onto his stomach on the ground, at which point the agents handcuffed him. No further action has been taken against him, but the incident ignited outrage among his fellow Democrats, who have characterised it as an 'assault on freedom of speech'. Elsewhere, police are preparing to deal with another surge of protests on Saturday, US time, to coincide with Mr Trump's military parade in Washington. The President has ordered the parade, at no small expense, to mark both his own birthday and that of the US Army. Wayne Ivey, the Sheriff in Florida's Brevard Country, has offered an ominous warning to those who choose to attend the planned 'No Kings' rallies across the country. 'If you spit on us, you're going to the hospital, then jail,' Sheriff Ivey said. 'If you hit one of us, you're going to the hospital, and jail, and most likely get bitten by one of our big, beautiful dogs we have here. 'If you try to mob rule a car in Brevard County – gather around it, refusing to let the driver leave. In our county, you're most likely going to get run over, and dragged across the street. 'If you throw a brick, a firebomb, or point a gun at one of our deputies, we will be notifying your family where to collect your remains at. Because we will kill you, graveyard dead. We're not going to play.
News.com.au
2 hours ago
- News.com.au
Manhandling of US senator ups California tensions with Trump admin
California's stand-off with President Donald Trump's administration ratcheted up Thursday, after a sitting US senator was handcuffed and forcibly removed from a press conference on controversial immigration raids that have spurred days of protests. The shocking incident, which came after the Republican president sent troops into Los Angeles over the objections of local and state officials, was swiftly slammed by furious Democrats who said it "reeks of totalitarianism." Video footage shows Senator Alex Padilla, a Democrat, being pushed from the room at a federal building in Los Angeles as he tried to ask Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem about the raids. "I'm Senator Alex Padilla. I have questions for the secretary," he said as two men grappled with him in front of journalists, including from AFP. Footage filmed by Padilla's staff outside the room shows the senator being pushed to the ground and handcuffed. Democratic-led California is currently embroiled in battles with the White House on several fronts, with Governor Gavin Newsom branding Trump "dictatorial" as his lawyers prepared to face off with the administration over the deployment of 4,700 troops to the city. "If this is how this administration responds to a senator with a question... you can only imagine what they're doing to farm workers, to cooks, to day laborers out in the Los Angeles community," Padilla told reporters later at a press conference. The incident "reeks of totalitarianism," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said, calling for an investigation. "Trump and his shock troops are out of control," Newsom posted on social media. The White House hit back, claiming it was a "theater-kid stunt" and claiming without evidence that Padilla "lunged toward Secretary Noem." Noem slammed Padilla's interruption as "inappropriate." A Homeland Security spokesman said she later met with the senator for 15 minutes. Noem was addressing reporters after almost a week of demonstrations in Los Angeles ignited by the Trump administration's immigration crackdown. The mostly-peaceful demonstrations have been marred by some eye-catching violence, with cars torched and rocks thrown at police officers. Trump, who has repeatedly exaggerated the scale of the unrest, deployed 4,000 National Guard as well as 700 US Marines. Critics have accused the Republican of a power grab and a judge was set to review the deployments' legality. Trump took credit Thursday for making Los Angeles "safe and sound." Anger at Trump's crackdown and the use of masked, armed immigration agents, backed by uniformed soldiers, is spreading to other cities. Nationwide protests were planned for Saturday. - 'Fear and terror' - A federal judge in San Francisco was set to hear arguments on whether use of the troops is constitutional, with Newsom alleging the president "is creating fear and terror." Trump on Thursday said Newsom -- seen as a contender for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2028 -- had "totally lost control of the situation" and should thank him for "saving his ass." California also sued Trump's administration Thursday over his move to scrap the state's tailpipe emission rules and its drive to phase out gas-powered cars. Trump was elected last year after campaigning on a promise to launch historic mass deportations. But with his mounting crackdown rippling through industries heavily reliant on immigrant labor -- such as farming, construction and hospitality -- Trump on Thursday said he had heard employers' complaints and hinted at a forthcoming policy shift. "We're going to have an order on that pretty soon, I think. We can't do that to our farmers -- and leisure too, hotels," he said. Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum spoke up Thursday, saying she had told a visiting US official that "we didn't agree with the use of raids to detain people working honestly in the United States." Protests also took place in Spokane, Seattle, Tucson, Las Vegas, Dallas, Austin, San Antonio, Milwaukee, Chicago, Atlanta, and Boston, according to US media. A nationwide "No Kings" movement was expected on Saturday, when Trump will attend a highly unusual military parade in the US capital. The Washington parade, featuring warplanes and tanks, has been organized to celebrate the 250th anniversary of the founding of the US Army but also happens to be the day of Trump's 79th birthday.
