Why is the media having a fit over Senator Jacinta Nampijinpa Price’s podcast interview?

I don’t know about you, but my patience is wearing a tad thin for all these hysterical Left-wing shills scripting our political news. You know, the ones who obsess about every footnote and comma from conservative politicians while ignoring the sins of the Left that stain Canberra like an oil slick suffocating a nature preserve. They are often accompanied by a monotonous deluge of single-minded bots that swarm social media, devour the narrative, and then retreat to digital hibernation until the next algorithm summons…

Senator Price appears to be a favourite point of outrage – their snack food when they’re giving Pauline Hanson a break.

This time the outrage is particularly eye-roll worthy, as are the pile-on reactions from Labor politicians desperate to distract from the latest poll results that show the so-called ‘racist’ One Nation rising above them on first preferences thanks to … yes, you guessed it … migrants voting for the Australia first platform. That must hurt, I get it, but it’s no excuse for the childish commentary we’ve been subjected to on social media from political representatives who surely have better things to do, such as balancing the Budget.

What happened this time?

Senator Price was doing what the left should do (but rarely attempt) by engaging with independent media.

She allowed herself to be asked a wide range of questions without notice and offered honest, unscripted replies. This is exactly the behaviour we should be encouraging in the political class. As taxpayers and voters, we have a right to know what those we elect to power think and, critically, to ensure that they are operating with independent thought rather than as living pawns of a political machine under the command of the Dear Leader.

I would much prefer a politician who fumbles the odd answer than one who point-blank refuses to be interrogated and whose views remain a mystery until they manifest in policy no one voted for.

When dealing with independent media, Senators, MPs, and candidates might have to do something taboo, such as sit and politely listen to the host’s opinion before offering their answer.

Listening without interrupting, even politely nodding along, is a foreign concept to most media hosts, journalists, and politicians, and so it is no surprise that they interpreted good manners as de facto endorsement.

Give them a break. Normal manners are tricky.

And so it was that the very human Senator Price appeared on the 2 Worlds Collide podcast – a popular channel among young Australians, regardless of its critics.

They were talking about migration when the host, Sam Bamford, offered his honest view of the situation. A view to which he is entitled.

His comments that preceded the now infamous question were extensive and anyone who listened to the exchange, rather than reading the sensationalised and condensed script, easily understood that Senator Price was responding to only a fraction of what Mr Bamford said.

You can watch the interview with Senator Price for context below:

Price was covering difficult yet critical cultural topics that the Australian community has demanded attention on.

Senator Price described her views and the Coalition’s position clearly and, frankly, by-the-book.

The Senator certainly didn’t wander out onto the street, covered in fake blood, and utter controversial statements. She did not glue herself to the tarmac and scream about the apocalypse. Nor did she do anything truly alarming, such as cuddle up to socialism or communism, two of the most dangerous political movements in human history which have been given a padded bed inside taxpayer-funded academia leaving over half of 12-24-year-olds considering a re-run of last century’s terrors.

That Senator Price’s views have somehow become a point of scorn in Australia tells us that the government is sensitive about its acute failings in the area of mass migration. Labor is probably worried that this can (and probably will) lead to an election wipe-out. Conservative politicians brave enough to point this out, such as Price, are politically dangerous.

Having watched various meltdowns and outlandish statements from Labor in the past few months on this topic, it feels as though outrage over migration criticism is the last stand of the Labor Party. A sort-of pathetic, dying wail.

The last time something like this happened to Senator Price (apparently the only Aboriginal politician not allowed to criticise migration while her kin on the Left march under ‘stolen land’ and ‘black future’ signs), she was thrown to the wolves by her own party and left on the backbench.

Liberal Leader Angus Taylor instead came to her defence, doing exactly what a conservative leader should do by rubbishing the nonsense accusations levelled against her by political opponents.

‘She made it very clear that she agrees with the party position and my position, which is that we shouldn’t discriminate in immigration based on race or ethnicity or religion, but we should, based on values. Let’s be clear, her position is as mine is, and I absolutely accept her explanation,’ said Angus Taylor.

He even followed up with a defence of attending a range of independent podcasts. After all, think about this logically. If the media demand is that politicians must agree with every point their host and network puts forward, you could never allow a conservative to appear on the ABC.

MSM and Left-wing politicians will drag this headline through the media cycle for at least another week, flogging it for every last click. Then they will stop to read the comments and realise many Australians agree with Senator Price. She is a very popular, which is why Angus Taylor has moved her to the frontbench where she belongs.

Remember, it was only a week ago Angus Taylor was asked why the phrase ‘mass migration’ is acceptable. He promptly explained that Australia has seen ‘550,000 people come to the country in a year’.

The idea that you have to defend the use of the word to describe the situation seems, to me, bizarre.

What’s wrong with describing reality?

And then I remember we live in a country where biology bends the knee to ideology and the definition of a woman had to be taken ‘on notice’.

So yes, take your outrage with a dash of salt.