Ever wonder what your lashes are destined for?
The cards have spoken.
Maybelline New York Mascara does it all.
Whether you crave fully fan lashes with lash sensational,
big, bold volume from the colossal,
a dramatic lift with falsies lash lift,
or natural looking volume from great lash,
your perfect lash future awaits.
Manifest your best mascara today.
Shop Maybelline New York and discover your lash destiny.
Shop now at Walmart.
BetterHelp Online Therapy bought this 30-second ad.
To remind you, right now, wherever you are,
to unclench your jaw.
Relax your shoulders.
Take a deep breath in and out.
Feels better, right?
That's 15 seconds of self-care.
Imagine what you could do with more.
Visit BetterHelp.com slash random podcast
for 10% off your first month of therapy.
No pressure, just help.
But for now, just relax.
I'm Mike Boris and this is Straight Talk.
I'm not going to say something that could get me into trouble, but...
Zahra Salah, welcome to Straight Talk.
Thanks for having me.
You're the co-founder of The Daily Oz and journalist, of course, and author.
What were you doing before The Daily Oz, though?
I was very interested in politics,
so I had decided I was going to try and interrogate politics
from every direction, from every perspective.
Did a stint at Sky News.
A bit opposite of The Daily Oz.
I mean, it was fascinating. I learnt a lot.
Then I worked in government relations
and then I worked for a politician very briefly.
And through all of those experiences,
I learnt that there was one thing missing.
No-one knew how to talk to young people.
Oftentimes when people say youth news,
it's written in terms of like a shitty entitled young people.
Ours was, we're going to speak across from you,
we're not going to speak down to you, we'll speak in your language.
Something that they'll be able to understand, digest and remember.
People in your, I don't know,
millennials or whatever they're called.
I'm actually Gen Z.
Just on the cusp, still claiming it.
You're like me, I'm on the cusp of genomic cancer.
Basically the same.
It's the same relevancy.
Zara Sala, welcome to Straight Talk.
Thanks for having me.
Now I know it's a soft spot, but I have had your co-founder in here.
It is, it's a sore point. It really is.
Sorry I had him in here first.
But I can't remember, I think, like, you can take this back to him,
but as I recall, he was...
So desperate that he just kept sending texts.
And like, I thought he was the only person...
Sounding very on brand.
The only person involved in the business, but he never mentioned you.
Well, then I'll go through this entire podcast recording without mentioning him.
Correct. Here's your chance to square up.
You're the co-founder of the Dali Oz and journalist, of course, and author.
And welcome to the Dalo studio.
Okay, let's just talk, Zara Sala,
obviously you've got an architecture somewhere in your family.
Because we're very close to...
It's a very famous Harry Seidler building, actually.
Just down the road here.
Which stands out like a sore thumb because it's the tallest building in probably all of Darlinghurst.
But a wonderful building, to be honest with you.
I actually like the building a lot.
I wouldn't want to live there.
It's definitely unique.
I don't think I could... I couldn't live there.
It's for some people.
Yeah, some people.
Does a family like yours, you're like, you know, growing up with a Seidler name,
is that a good thing or a bad thing?
Well, I think people...
Were you aware of it?
Yeah, no, I think people presume...
It's always the first question I get, are you related to Harry?
And then the next one is that they presume I'm creative in some sense
and I have to let them down slowly.
But you're an author, though.
Journalists are creative.
I like facts and I like, you know, pragmatic thinking
and I don't know how well that is coupled with creativity.
I wouldn't call myself a creative person, actually.
You wouldn't call yourself an artist?
That is certainly not my strong suit.
But journalism requires...
Taking the facts and creating some sort of verse
that makes it interesting to read, though.
Because facts on themselves...
Because facts are boring.
To me, they can be boring.
But if they're presented a certain way...
Like in The Daily Oz.
So what were you doing before The Daily Oz, though?
I mean, it feels like a million years ago,
but it was only a couple of years ago.
I was very interested in politics,
so I had decided straight out of school
I was going to try and interrogate politics
from every direction.
From every perspective.
So I did a stint at Sky News.
I was the person that would attach the microphone.
A bit opposite of The Daily Oz.
I mean, it was fascinating.
I hadn't studied journalism,
so I learnt, you know, tricks of the trade there.
Sort of like an internship type of thing, wasn't it?
Yeah, but I did it for quite a while,
for about a year and a half,
and was doing the 4am shift,
learning a lot about all the guests,
how things were done.
Then I worked in government relations
for a peak body that was kind of in the health space,
so I learnt how you can...
how you can relate to government there.
And then I worked for a politician very briefly.
And through all of those experiences,
I learnt that there was one thing missing.
No one knew how to talk to young people.
Which is sort of The Daily Oz's shtick.
That's your territory.
Well, I don't want to go there just yet, though,
because you're still pretty young.
How old are you now?
How old were you guys when you set up
alongside your co-founder?
He who must not be named.
How old were you then when you set up The Daily Oz?
I had just turned 20, I believe.
Yeah, because it seems to be quite a while ago now.
Yeah, it was a while ago, but for a very long time
it was just a side hustle.
It wasn't a business.
There were kind of no business aspirations.
Wanted to tell our friends the news.
Did that for many years.
No one particularly paid attention.
It was only during COVID that we then were able to grow it
and begin to commercialise it and make it a business.
So take me back to the, let's call it the side hustle.
Where were you working?
I mean, I was in various jobs through that time
because it was so long.
But the last one I was working as a lobbyist.
So I was working with businesses, consulting with businesses
to then engage government and engage the crossbench.
And that was my day job.
I was, you know, very much on a clear trajectory there.
But then this just blew up out of nowhere
and I couldn't ignore it anymore.
Yeah, but a lobbyist, my God, at 20?
I was at that point, no.
So that was only a couple of years back.
So I, we did it for a long time.
It only became the job in 2022.
So, yeah, back then.
So, but normally a lobbyist, I mean, clearly you're a confident person.
You must be a confident person.
Because a lobbyist, generally speaking,
you've probably been a politician for 25 years.
You've retired and you've got all these sort of web of people you know
in a various department.
It could be the Department of Defence, for argument's sake.
You might have been the Defence Minister.
Or Foreign Affairs, something like that.
And you decide to go into private enterprise and become a lobbyist
and you're being lobbied by, I don't know,
some of the big American jet makers or something like that.
And it makes sense.
Yeah, I don't quite fit the bill.
A young woman, you don't naturally fit.
And you're a young woman as well.
How did you do that?
How did you make a way...
How did you make a one-way say, I'm going to be a lobbyist?
It didn't quite happen that way.
I met various people through the roles that I had been in previously.
And one of those people had set up her own lobbying firm.
And her shtick, per se, was that she wanted to do lobbying differently
and that she wanted to lobby for companies, you know,
that she believed in, that had a value add,
and that she was able to create something that was,
she called it at that point, tripartisan.
So it wasn't just a coalition lobbyist.
It wasn't just a labour lobbyist.
It wasn't a crossbench lobbyist.
It was everything.
And so I was sold on that.
And she said, come in and just help us build this thing off the ground.
And so I was one of the first few employees.
I learnt so much.
I mean, I was oftentimes the only woman in the room about 40 years their junior.
But I learnt and I got to see up close what power looks like
and how it comes to be.
And I think I learnt a lot of lessons being in that job.
That's very interesting.
I just want to turn back one page.
So we're talking, when you said a different way of doing things,
not just the tripartite piece, that is having everybody on side,
but are we talking about a process that is more connected to ethics?
So an ethical way of lobbying or lobbying about ethical matters?
The latter more so.
It was about that, you know, we weren't just going to lobby for anyone.
I think oftentimes it's the highest bidder and you go with them if they need help.
When this firm was set up, the idea was that, you know,
you can choose who you work with and that,
you can do pro bono work and you can do all of these things
to really redefine the way that companies and not-for-profits
and whoever it is reaches government because it is so difficult
to reach government and to reach the opposition
and to reach the crossbench.
I've wondered about that and I know it's a little bit off the daily hours topic,
but if you don't mind just indulge me for a second.
So I've often wondered about lobbyists who could also be a corporate PR type
organisation, but they're guns for hire.
So one minute they're in the Liberal Party,
one minute they're in the Liberal Party area and the next minute
they're in the Labour or it could be in the Greens.
What do you think about that process?
I mean, obviously you do that in the tripartisan process,
but equally you can choose who you don't want to lobby for.
Let's say someone comes along and asks you to lobby for gun,
gun licences, not gun control, but gun,
and let's say it's something you're against for argument's sake.
Those people who take on those jobs,
bigger organisations, the guns for hire,
how do you think they justify the ends that they're trying to achieve
for their particular customer or client?
I think it's really hard.
I think that no one goes into it thinking that they're going to end up
lobbying for guns or for whatever it is.
Tobacco or whatever it is.
Exactly, whatever it is.
Those are the companies that end up having the most money.
And I think that it is, you know,
one of the biggest issues with the industry,
is that not enough people have these kind of ethical boundaries
that they will put down and demarcate.
I was so young in my career that I was not the person making the calls at all.
But I knew from that point that it was just a very transactional industry to be in
and that that was not really where I saw, you know, my future or what I wanted.
But I think that these people just see it as their day job like anyone else
and that that is, it's their job to work with companies to connect them to government.
And if they don't,
if they don't agree with them, so what?
It's a very challenging area to be in.
Is it, but does it have, can it be justified in a way by saying that
everyone's entitled to a hearing, a fair hearing at government level?
So you, sir, are entitled to have a fair hearing between all the parties
in relation to what your thing you're trying to prosecute,
could be tobacco or whatever it is.
And all I am is a...
I'm not there making any moral judgment on what you do, either way.
A bit like lawyers, like person comes in, committed the crime,
it's got to be, you know, the right to be represented is the thing,
advocacy is the thing, sort of innocent until proven guilty.
That's one of our adversarial concepts in this country.
Is there any way you can justify in the lobby program that type of activity,
that type of mindset?
I get it, but I don't know if it holds up because I think oftentimes
it's just about who can afford lobbyists, you know, like these not-for-profits
and the people that are trying to do good and trying to get their matters heard.
The reality is that it's just a lot harder to find a lobbyist
who will pick up your case.
And so I just think, you know, I believe that everyone should have access,
I guess, to government and, you know, anyone, any company,
any individual should have access.
But I think in reality...
It comes down to who can hire a lobbyist and who can pay for them.
And usually it's not the people who are out there doing the good stuff.
And how do you, I mean, because it's a difficult territory,
even with your own business daily also today,
it's a difficult territory to work out what's good and what's bad.
I mean, like it's nearly bordering on how you were brought up,
perhaps even religious mores into your world.
Like what were you?
Exposed to and therefore I decide that is, that's a value judgment.
I decide that's good and therefore I'm happy with it.
I decide that's not something that's good.
It's against my own views on morality or ethics, better word.
Therefore I'm not going to do it.
How do you, how were you doing it then?
We'll talk a bit later on about your business.
But are you an editor-in-chief, what do you call it, of the data?
No, but I mean who...
Yeah, I lead the editorial side.
You lead it, is a good way of putting it.
So therefore your own business can have a certain direction in the way it goes.
What are the factors that influence, say, someone like you
in how you make these ethical judgments?
What is it you've been in your childhood or someone you came across during your life
or is it just social development more recently
or social development from the day you were a little kid?
It's such a good question.
I mean, I think it's changed over time.
I think back then if we're taking the lobbying example,
I think it's a privilege to be able to say no in your job
and to be able to push back.
And the reality is that when you're a junior, you know,
when you're someone my age, you ain't saying no to anyone.
And like, you know, I often get criticized.
People will write things about why I worked at Sky News.
I needed to learn the tricks of the trade.
And I think that oftentimes it is those experiences
that will shape the way you see the world and how you understand things.
Today with The Daily Oz, we have an amazing team
of 16 incredible journalists, and it's all together
that we are able to combine our lived experience, you know,
our values, everything, and to create a direction
that we're all really proud of that we think represents, you know,
young Australia more generally, not just my personal life experience
or Sam's personal life experience.
Nothing is purely objective.
We all come to everything with a set of our own biases,
but I think it's through consultation, it's through working with a team
that we've been able to really set that vision
that we're all really proud of.
So does it become a consensus?
Is it like a majority rules or how do you put it to a vote?
Well, I mean, if we're talking about The Daily Oz,
every morning we have our journos who pitch stories and pitch their angles
and we have a conversation about that.
All the editors talk about it and we negotiate a line
that we're all really happy with, that the journalists
are comfortable with.
It's always just a bit of a conversation and not every time
will we get it 100% right.
I think we need to own up to the fact that we're all learning,
but we certainly try to make sure that it reflects where we're all at.
When did you decide to, what was it that got you to decide
that I'm going to do a side hustle called, was it called The Daily Oz?
It's always been called that.
So what was it that made you and Sam make that decision?
It wasn't my decision.
So Sam, he wrote on, we don't know if it was LinkedIn or Instagram,
I can't really remember, saying I want to start something
called The Daily Oz.
It's going to be a news platform.
He said, does anyone want to join me?
Apparently there was a really long line of people who responded.
Join me for what?
There was like nothing else to it.
He and I had community connections we'd never met.
I had a whole lot of friends send me it.
I was the only person who responded.
We went for coffee and that day we created what is now TDA.
But back then it was just how can we do things differently?
He comes from a news family, news obsessed.
I've always been very curious.
We wanted to do it differently, see what we could do.
In that little cafe in Bondi we decided let's give it a shot.
We don't know what this will be.
We don't know where it will end up, but it's worth trying.
I set up a little business called Business Bullets and I did it with Will Jefferies
who's one of the producers of the Ben Fordham show today.
And we did it, we quite liked, and we'll talk about your formatting a bit later,
but I thought it was great to have a format for business owners,
just Business Bullets, like just, you know, what do you need to know?
It was very ordinary, terribly unsuccessful.
We ran it for about two years, cost me a bloody fortune.
And in the end I said, well, that means I'm working for them.
And then he went off to work for Ben Fordham.
He took James Willis' spot at Ben Fordham's office and on the TGV show.
Our bent was very right of politics because Will's very, very, very right.
I don't know if you know Will, but his dad's a lawyer.
I know his dad because his dad's law firm represents me in some matters.
But it was right down the other end of the spectrum to where you guys are.
And we'll talk about that in a moment.
But I was extraordinarily unsuccessful at it.
It just didn't work.
And I was funding it myself and I didn't want to go out to get –
I couldn't be bothered to go out and find investors and stuff like that.
So I just – which still exists, but we don't do anything with it.
And I just remembered – you just reminded me of it,
a reminder of how I sunk, I don't know, about $250,000 down the hole.
Always worth a shot.
Yeah, worth a shot.
It wasn't actually when I think about it.
You want to buy it, it's available.
Business Bullets.
But you're going to have to change the whole direction.
But anyway, let's get back to you more importantly.
So you sort of responded to –
Yeah, that was it.
Yeah, changed my life.
You had no idea where – but did you know about where his biases were?
No, knew nothing about him.
But didn't you say you knew him from a community?
We had connections.
We had mutual connections.
You had never met him.
I was like, your name seems familiar, but that was it.
I knew nothing about him.
I knew nothing about what he did, what he wanted to do.
And we met and it was just like got on like a house on fire.
So you started doing a side hustle?
What's the first thing?
What's the first thing you did?
We tried to build out a Canva template.
Like as a website?
No, just a template for what we were going to post.
So we were like we need it to be engaging.
We know young people give a shit, but they're not engaging.
We think part of it is that visually it's so boring to read the news.
So we built out something that was really colourful.
And that was the first thing we did while sitting in that cafe on the same day that we decided
we were going to do it.
We started posting five Instagram stories just on the little stories thing that vanished
We did that every day for about three years before and after our jobs.
No one looked at it.
No one particularly bothered to read it.
But it was a great training ground for us.
We learnt so much through it.
And I think the consistency was building habit and it was a great lesson for us.
So if we just go back a step then on what you thought.
Or it wasn't working or it didn't work with others, that is boring.
The presentation is boring.
Let's say the competitors.
You know, let's call them the competitors.
It's boring in that the way they present us their stories.
And it's all digital these days.
And I presume you wouldn't have been making an opinion relative to the actual newspaper.
The digital content.
I mean, the boring thing is just a small part of it.
But we thought that it was just not matching the way that young people were consuming information.
So how did you know that?
Because I was a young person.
And I had friends who, you know, it was born out of so many conversations with friends.
You know, I would have friends who would say, let me know what I need to know about XYZ because
I have a date tonight.
And so they were curious.
There was something in there that they were like, I want to know what's happening.
But there was a step that was missing.
They weren't going out to actually.
Find that news themselves.
They were coming to me to ask for it because they knew that I was someone that was always
And so we became obsessed with that.
What is the missing part there?
If we know young people are curious, we know they want to learn about the world.
And so, you know, the solution or at least the hypothesis back then was that there were
a couple of things.
One, it was the way that the news itself was written.
We thought that there was a lot of assumed knowledge that if you didn't grow up with
the Australian or the City Morning Herald on your kitchen bench at home, how are you to
know what a leadership spill was?
You know, it was always written about, but never quite explained.
And so we took this idea that we needed to really step back, explain the news, explain
the concepts and make people feel like they were along for the ride, not coming in at
And then the second part of it was also, yeah, as I said, just the way it looked and it felt
and where it appeared.
Back then, people weren't doing social media and news.
Those were two very distinct concepts.
Social media was for sharing photos of your avocado toast.
News was for a website or for a physical newspaper.
And we said, let's marry the two.
Canva is about making it look pretty.
It's a shit word.
You know, like digestible.
More interesting.
Color, you know, shapes, makes it more interesting.
How did you know that being a news obsessed person, apart from people not being able to
understand the news because they didn't know what a spill was, for example, and maybe they
never got brought up like that.
You got brought up that way.
Someone in your household talked about that.
And apart from wanting to address that issue, how did you know that people, did you do a
I mean, like just a couple of friends?
No, that would have taken far more foresight than we ever had.
Like we, it was just, it was really just born out of personal experience.
It was conversations with friends.
There was, a survey would have implied that there was some sort of business case to be
made, which at that time, it just purely wasn't.
It was just, we think, we have a gut feel that this is what young people will want.
Let's give it a shot.
And it turned out to be right, which helps.
So you went and said, yeah, yeah, yeah.
Well, your friends, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
That's what we want.
Tell me about what, because I'm going to dinner and we might end up discussing this with this
dude or whatever.
And this is relevant.
This is current news, but I don't know what the fuck to talk about.
So can you help me, Addy?
We will give them 10 slides, five slides.
Something that they'll.
They'll be able to understand, digest, be able to access and remember.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
And it's written in their language.
It's not in a condescending tone.
Oftentimes when people say youth news, it's written in terms of like a shitty entitled
Ours was, we're going to speak across from you.
We're not going to speak down to you.
We'll speak in your language.
And there you go.
You can, you don't have to spend hours reading the news.
We'll give you what you need to know.
And that's what we've done since day dot.
Given that you're in that cohort of people, you said something really interesting.
What do you say about that phrase?
People in your, I don't know, millennials or whatever they're called.
I'm actually Gen Z.
Just on the cusp.
Still claiming it.
You're like me, I'm on the cusp of Gemini cancer.
Basically the same.
It's the same relevancy.
But yeah, it's a bit weird, eh?
But what do you say about this concept of young people feel like they have a sense of entitlement?
I think it's a lazy term.
I think that it's a catch all.
And I think that it is used by people who don't spend a lot of time working in the communities
and with these, you know, demographics and with these groups.
I think, sure, there are going to be some people in every single generation that are
I think what Gen Z actually is, is misunderstood.
And I think that, you know, it is difficult to understand what it has been like to grow
up as a digital native, to have your whole life online, to have everything you know of
the world on your mobile phone.
And I think that oftentimes there's.
There's a disconnect between, at least generationally, between understanding what that does to a young
person and their view of the world and what we expect of young people.
And I think, you know, when we're told that young people are entitled or that they're
They think they're entitled.
Or that they're complacent and that they don't care about the world.
It's just about them.
You know, I think that what we have done has shown the opposite to be true.
We can see that they are engaged.
We can see that they care.
It just, they haven't been communicated with in the right way and I think that that just
comes down to some of the differences in the ways that, you know, we were brought up and
what our world looked like.
It's interesting and I'm going to say something that could get me into trouble, but I think
people who've retired and have accumulated a bit of, a few assets, maybe got a valuable
house that they bought really cheap 40, 50 years ago and maybe because they put a lot
of superannuation away because they're compelled to, I think they're entitled.
I would agree with that.
I think, I think they think they're entitled.
I think that there is.
Get off the road.
I've always been to this park every time, for the last 40 years, I've always sat on
this spot on the beach for the last 40 years.
Who are these foreigners coming in and sitting, coming in at four o'clock, sitting up a barbecue
and cooking lamb, whatever they cook, lamb something or other, or who's these people
coming to my park?
Or who's this person walking the dog without a lead in this no lead area and this dog's
bigger than every other dog.
I mean, I see these people really entitled.
I think there's entitlement in every generation.
It's so lazy to assign that to an entire generation.
There's no homogenous block of anyone, you know, like another 27 year old has a very
different life to the one that I lead.
You can't possibly share common characteristics and nothing else.
Like there are differences and I think they're often overlooked.
So do you think that part of your thing at Dali Oz is to work that concept over?
In other words, work it to your advantage.
So take, take, take the high ground in relation to this sense of entitlement.
And actually let people, your readers who are younger people, let them feel as though
that you're talking to them as not someone who thinks that they think they're entitled.
I think, yeah, it's about making them feel empowered.
That's what our mission is.
We want to empower them.
I hate that word.
I hate that word.
It's in my mission statement.
So I'll just have to cross it off.
Mark Boris doesn't like it.
No, I don't know.
I just want a better word.
I'll think of a synonym and we'll come back to that.
It's like, it sort of gives them a sense of, does it give me a sense of power?
I don't know if we need that.
No, I don't know that it gives you a sense.
I think that it gives you a toolkit.
Empowerment gives you options and a toolkit to engage with the world around you.
I think that often young people have felt like they don't have that.
They've been told a lot, you know, they've had a lot of things projected onto them, but
they haven't felt empowered to, you know, engage back and have the tools, whether that
be information, whether that be fact, whatever it is.
To then go back with.
With their own set of, you know, worldviews.
And I think that's what about empowerment that we are trying to do, is just give them
those tools through news and through an understanding of the world around them.
Because the other generations are fed, still fed the news largely through traditional,
the traditional entities, the traditional news entities using digital programs, obviously,
but also some of them are getting the news feed through Facebook and other places.
And your generation's probably more Instagrammed the way you write it anyway, the way you
guys do it, you deliver through Instagram.
The people who are getting it delivered through Instagram, your generation, feel as though,
I think, feel as though the people who are getting it through the more traditional formats
think they know more about it than the people who read your stuff.
There's a sense of empowerment for me is not the word, but there's a sense of, I know more
I've been reading the newspaper longer than you have.
I've been reading about trouble in the Middle East.
I've been reading about China, reading about the United States a lot longer than you.
What would you know?
Well, I mean, I don't even think that's readers.
I'm not saying that's me.
No, I don't even think that's readers.
Like we've experienced that in the industry more generally.
When we went to our first budget lockup, an unnamed legacy publisher in this country said,
oh, it's the TikTokers.
Why are you here?
And I was like, I'm coming for your audience.
But that's just what it is.
Like there is always going to be this inherent bias to what was and the way that we have
done things and against innovation and doing things differently.
And we don't think about it too much.
We just keep going because we know it's working.
But do you think your readers feel that too?
So like your readers feel like, well, do they, do you think they're asking themselves a question?
Is my information that I get from say someone like you as good as in terms of quality or
as accurate as what my grandparents might be getting by reading a newspaper?
I think there are not, I think there are very low levels of trust in institutions in
this country, including in media.
And I think that young people are some of the lowest trusting, you know, readers across
And so I don't think that they're really-
They trust the least.
And that's what we're trying to rebuild.
So that's what we're focused on.
It's about rebuilding that trust.
And so I don't think that they're necessarily considering whether the information they're
getting is any different or any worse or any better.
I think it's just- Yeah.
It's just, can they trust this?
And the answer is yes.
So you're trying to get them to rebuild trust in your format as a, or you're trying to get-
Or in media more generally.
I was going to say, or more media.
Because I'll be honest here.
I think just from what I can see, I think generally speaking, everyone distrusts media.
And everyone distrusts government.
That's where I feel I'm at today.
I'm at that position.
Like I don't know what I, if I can trust what I read.
I mean, largely because, particularly on my areas of expertise, because I mean, I know
that it's written by someone who probably doesn't know much about the topic as I do,
because I'm in the area.
Government, I definitely don't trust.
I don't distrust them.
I don't think that they're untrustworthy.
But I don't necessarily trust their judgment.
It's probably- Has that changed over time?
Because when I was younger, I was never taught to challenge that.
I just accepted what they did as untrustworthy.
But I also think-
But I also think that the individuals who ran government were different to the individuals
who run government today.
I feel as though they're more committed in a career sense, more committed to their cause
as opposed to today, I think it's, I want to be in power.
That's how I feel.
I mean, and I'm not going red or blue.
I mean, you know, Bob Hawke and Paul Keating were just as great as John Howard and Peter
Costello as far as I'm concerned.
In terms of policies.
I think that I had something, that I didn't have something to do with it, that I had some
Economic policy for argument's sake.
I just think they're both red and blue, both fantastic, but I don't see the same outcomes
I don't see the great policy decisions, even, I don't see the unpopular policy decisions.
I don't see anybody prepared to stand up and make an unpopular call.
And risking it all, because risking it all means they might lose power.
And I feel quite deflated by that.
And as a result of that, I therefore become less likely to believe what any outlet will
put out that is quoting one of these individuals.
Because by definition-
So what do you trust?
I don't know why I've turned this back on you now, but here we are.
Yeah, no, it's okay.
Well, you're a journalist.
Well, if it comes to, I don't trust anyone when it comes to areas that I don't have a
great knowledge base.
So if it's the war in Gaza, or the war in Ukraine, or all the various thousands of skirmishes
in Africa, I don't trust any media, because I don't know enough about the topic.
And I know that media can be not misled, but can be directed.
And unless they give both sides of the story, and they give it really plainly, but when
it comes to areas of economics, which I have a good understanding, and other things that
I have a good understanding.
I only trust myself.
I'll read what they've got to say, only because I know I need to be relevant.
I need to maintain my relevance.
I need to know what people are talking about.
I need to know what the narrative is.
But in terms of making a judgment around the narrative, or being convinced by the narrative,
or being influenced by the narrative, if it's an area I have expertise in, I very rarely
allow it to influence me.
And then, in turn, I often say things about the narrative, which get me into trouble,
but it doesn't matter.
You know what I mean?
Because I don't give a fuck.
I mean, like this show, I don't give a fuck.
I mean, I can say what I want.
I can do whatever I want.
Because it's my show, like your paper.
Like your news outlet.
You can say what you like.
I mean, you know, within reason.
You've probably got shareholders and stuff like that.
You have to be careful.
Or, you know, one of your shareholders, or who I know, will ring you up and say, what
did you say that for?
But generally speaking, I don't have to answer to anybody.
So, to answer your question, I very rarely...
Which is one of the reasons I was really keen to talk to you today, is I want to find out
where people are coming from.
So that I know what light that your own personality and your own beliefs are turning on the news
that you're preparing.
Or, Mark, can you be convinced that Zara is completely agnostic in relation to what she
writes, or what she co-edits?
If that's the word.
And because I think people's personalities, by definition, are always going to get in
the way of everything you write about.
Because you write about everything.
You can't write about any one particular thing.
You have to write about everything.
Across the country, across the world.
Across the world.
You know, like, for example, I'm presuming that you're Jewish.
So, I wonder to myself, and I haven't read it, but I do look at your stuff on Daily
I subscribe, I follow the Daily Oz, and I do look at the stuff.
And I actually love the way you've set it out.
I mean, it's very smart, very intuitive, very easy to consume.
Simply, let's call it, I don't mean this in a bad way, but simply written.
That's the point.
It's really important.
I mean, I can get through it quickly.
And you're just hitting on one topic.
You don't have a thousand topics.
You've just got one topic, then there comes another one that comes through, and I'll let
that guide the topic.
But I wonder whether or not, if you and your co-founder-
Have one bias or no bias.
And I haven't read, by the way, I haven't read anything you've written about it.
Because I look at the Greens right now.
The Greens, pardon me for being cynical for a moment, but, and perhaps even Labor, they've
worked out there's probably a couple of million people here of Palestinian Muslim faith compared
to the number of people who are of Jewish faith.
And maybe this is a cynical view.
But it was one expressed to me this morning by a very senior person, earlier this morning,
that the Greens are going for one vote, they're going for the Palestinian vote because there's
Now, I don't know if it's right or wrong, because I've never spoken to Shoebridge, I've
never spoken to a band about it, I wouldn't have a clue.
But I wonder, then all of a sudden I wonder, someone put that idea in my head, and I wonder.
Then I wonder about those people who are writing news articles, and I don't know what you guys
But I wonder whether they chase, they're going for the same thing, or they're just
getting, doing something that's a bit inflammatory, hoping people will read it.
I think that this conflict in particular has been the hardest of any-
To position yourself.
Well, just rather to, you know, when people are reading about the current conflict, they
are not looking for fact.
They are looking to have their own worldviews-
They're looking for sides.
And they're really looking to, they feel very emotionally on both sides.
And rightly, about the state of affairs.
And they are looking for something to reflect back their own, you know, worldview, and their
own beliefs, and their own values.
And that is not the role of news.
That is certainly part of the role of opinion.
We don't do opinion.
That's not what we do.
There's a space for that, not our space.
And so when you are presented with fact, that can be really confronting, especially at a
time where we're seeing, you know, activism journalism.
Which is more opinion based.
But it's trying to pretend that what you're doing is fact, when in reality it's just activism.
And we've seen it with like, influencers, and commentators, and people who are going
out on their own, and positioning themselves as a media company, or as something bigger.
But it is just their own view.
And so I think that when that is out there in the world, and we know that there are such
low levels of trust in media, it's an incredibly difficult thing to try-
To try and navigate.
And, you know, a lot of people feel very strongly on both sides about the way that we have covered
it, but I'm proud that we have brought the same principles and the same, you know, levels
of accuracy and fact-based information as we have with anything else.
Not too long ago, running a business looked a lot different.
A good location and a solid reputation were enough to keep a customer base happy.
No websites, no social media, no SEO, just old school networking and persistence, of course.
But times have changed.
In today's digital world, your business needs more.
It needs more than just a great product.
It needs visibility.
That's where Squarespace comes in.
Whether you're just getting started or expanding your brand, it's the all-in-one platform that
makes building and managing your online presence simple.
With Blueprint AI, creating a professional, customized website takes just a few clicks.
Plus, powerful tools like automated client invoicing, online courses, and memberships
help you generate revenue effortlessly.
So you can focus on growing your business instead of losing it.
Head to squarespace.com forward slash mentored for a free trial.
And when you're ready to launch, use offer code mentored, M-E-N-T-O-R-E-D, to save 10%
off your first purchase of a website or a domain.
The old adage goes, it isn't what you say, it's how you say it.
Because to truly make an impact, you need to set an example.
You need to take the lead.
You need to adapt to whatever comes your way.
And when you're that driven, you drive an equally determined vehicle.
The Range Rover Sport.
Blending power, poise, and performance, it was designed to make an impact.
With a dynamic drive, refined comfort, and innovations like cabin air purification and
active noise cancellation, the Range Rover Sport is built to be as uncompromising as you.
Explore Range Rover Sport at rangerover.com slash us slash sport.
It's interesting, you know, that you said that.
Say what you said, because opinions versus facts.
So when I was, this sounds terrible, like sound like an old bastard, but when I was
growing up, one of the news outlets in particular was an actual news outlet, never had opinions,
just said, this is the news.
But that particular news outlet today looks to me very much opinion based, as do some
of the other major news outlets too.
To some extent, it looks like today, all of us around the world are being asked to take
It's a time of, you must take a side.
Yeah, on everything.
But not just what's going on in the war, but everything.
Abortion, not abortion, making money, not making money, interest rates, inflation versus
interest rates, like everything.
And pick a person.
Who do you, whose side are you on?
Not just pick a side, but who do you-
And state it publicly.
And be prepared to stay publicly.
And if you're not on my side, I'm going to come after you.
Or someone will come after you.
How do you feel about that?
I think that that's noise and that what we're doing is news and not noise.
So you're trying to avoid that?
You know, like, well, I mean, in one sense, that exists.
And we know that world exists.
And I think the problem is when people get into that world without the foundation of
fact, without knowing what it is they're actually talking about.
And so what we're trying to do is give them that foundation of fact, give them just the
news of the day, no opinion, no commentary.
Then if they want to go indulge in those conversations, fine.
At least they're equipped with some of the facts to go into those conversations.
I think the problem we have is when we have people entering, whether it be a political
debate, an economic debate, whatever it is.
Without the foundation of fact, they go straight to the commentary space.
And that's not founded on evidence.
It's not founded on accuracy.
And I think that that missing bit is really important to fill.
And so I don't think that there should be no opinion.
I don't think that there should be no commentary.
I just think we need the other stuff really strongly first before we get there.
And so, you know, I never say that the Daily Oz is someone's be all end all.
I know that they're going to consume other information.
They're going to consume other media outlets, but they need both.
They can't just have one.
Because I think that that's when we end up in those really kind of prolonged evidence
lacking conversations.
And of course, we've now got, you know, fact checking programs and all that sort of stuff.
But even that can be biased.
We have a full time fact checker.
So that was an investment that we made and we decided was important.
And she's an incredibly valuable part of our team.
But what about, and maybe be interesting, because you said you talked about the budget
So, you know, I'd love to have him here to ask me the question, but like, let's call
it like Jim comes in and Dr. Jim Chalmers comes in and he's presenting the budget and
he's presenting, he's not going to present a shit position.
He's going to be, as election companies, he wants to present a fairly good position, what
he considers reasonable.
And then he attributes policy, their policy to fighting inflation, increasing unemployment,
sorry, decreasing unemployment, keeping it at a good rate, making, he's going to present
their policy as being good for workers, because that's one of the, you know, the biggest constituency
Definitely one of the bigger funders as well, in terms of election, winning elections or
challenging elections.
I can make numbers do anything.
And I can attribute to the variables.
Anything you like.
I can build a model.
I mean, that's my, her experience.
I can build a model by inserting variables, which is model basically just a formula.
It's like an algorithm.
I can build one that can tell you that the government's doing a great job, and I can
build another one that's telling you the government does a crap job.
And I can interpret things that the RBA says, that she says, that indicate that they're
not happy with the government.
And I can interpret the stuff that she says, just the words, by saying she is happy with
When you're at the lockup.
How do you, what do you do?
Like, when you're going to present the facts as he's told you?
That's the point.
So that last bit about, I can interpret X, Y, Z, we're not doing the interpreting.
What we're doing is, let's take budget lockup as an example.
So for anyone that's not familiar, because normal people would never subject themselves
to seven hours in a locked room with no phones.
Most boring thing in the world.
But you walk in, you're given a stack of budget papers, your phone is taken away from you,
and you have no internet.
And through that time-
Before they present the budget.
You are trawling through, a journalist is trawling through those papers, looking at
just hard numbers.
There is nothing else.
Then, separately, you have a stack of the government's media releases.
That's them spinning, and this isn't just the specific government, it's every government-
Every government, yeah, yeah.
Spinning what it is that those numbers should say in their minds.
And then, come 6.30pm, we have the treasurer get up and present the budget to the nation.
By the time the treasurer has gotten up and given that speech, our journalists are out,
they are not there covering that, they have taken everything from the numbers that they
For the Daily Oz specifically, we do about 10, 15 posts on budget night that says, here's
what's in the budget for health, here's what's in the budget for housing.
We're not using the government's spin at any point, we're not even talking about the
government, we're purely talking about those numbers, and then letting people do that interpretation
bit that you just mentioned by themselves.
And they can go and read the Herald, or the Australian, or the Guardian's interpretation
They do those A plus lists and F for whatever else, that's not our place, we're not going
We're going to say, here's the funding that's gone to this, this, and this, here's where
the funding is not, off you go, you have the facts you need.
And then, so, when somebody reads your facts, let's say they read it tomorrow morning, the
morning after the budget's been delivered, because, you know, whatever, whatever reason
it is, but they've already read the IFR, or they've read the Oz.
And they've got, they've got their opinion already in their brain, do you think that
those people will interpret what you've put in, the facts that you put out based on their
opinion they already hold?
That's not our audience.
The people that you've just said, I'm not reading the Fin Review.
I read your stuff.
Thank you for being the anomaly that we can use in anecdotal evidence.
Our audience, we surveyed them, 73% where they said that we are their primary source
They're coming to us first, and then going elsewhere.
And do they go elsewhere?
Do you know that?
I believe so, yeah.
We know that there is, you know, a fuller media diet, and we encourage that.
That's excellent.
For your age audience?
And there are, you know, you've had Hannah Ferguson on the show before.
We know that there are people that would read Cheek.
That we know that there are people that would read all sorts of things.
They'd go and, Capital Brief, they'd go and read that if they're in the space.
Also been on the show.
They're creating, you know, a really sustainable media diet, where they have come to us for
those facts, and then they're getting the analysis from elsewhere.
So I don't think it's necessarily going the other way, at least for our primary audience.
So they're not coming, having read analysis, and then reading the facts.
They're opening up social media.
They probably don't even know it's budget night.
They see a post from us, then they realize it's budget night.
They read our things, and then if they want more, they go elsewhere.
So your business has been going for, I guess, about eight years now, seven?
And originally, you and Sam funded it all yourselves?
We actually had put no money into it.
But you sort of self-funded.
We just spent no money on anything.
But you used your own efforts.
And then we had someone else join the business, put in a bit of money then.
He's since exited the business.
And we've been doing it for a couple of years to just build it, spending very little
money until we raised a round.
So you did a raise.
We've done two raises.
And the business now, what are you talking about in terms of audiences?
How do you measure your audiences and how are they going?
So our fastest growing audience is actually our newsletter audience.
That was an intentional play by us to diversify our audience away from being primarily social.
We still see social as the front door.
We want people to find us that way.
That's how you discover us.
But if we think of it as a funnel and that is kind of that third party not owned by us
rented audience, we need to bring them into our ecosystem.
We need to be able to know who they are and we need to be able to have some of that data.
So we have been able to grow that first party data audience, especially in light of all
of the concerns between Meta and the government.
We didn't want to risk anything by having all our eggs in one corner or one basket.
And so newsletter, we've got 250,000 daily readers.
We've got a podcast, we've got an Instagram, we've got a TikTok, got a website and then
building something else as well.
You'll have to play.
You've got a big audience.
It's an emoji game.
So you have to guess it's words written out as emojis and it's on our website.
And so people come read the news.
The New York Times brings in, rather, most of their audience through games.
It's like, we need to be able to diversify our offering.
We're not going to do pop culture.
We're not going to do lifestyle.
We're not going to do gossip.
How do we keep people interested?
And be a bit playful at the same time.
And it's hard when you only do hard news to be playful.
And so our excellent tech wizard niche built us a game from scratch.
Talking about playful, playfulness, can we just turn our attention for a moment to Harris
You guys are covering global news.
What's the state of play?
How do you see it?
I mean, what do you think is going to happen?
Do you mind if I ask?
I really, I don't know.
I think four months-
Is that poll-based?
You base it on polls or you're just just a person view?
I mean, the polls don't really tell us anything.
They say neck and neck.
It's very difficult to decide for anything.
But most people are too embarrassed to say they vote for Trump anyway.
So yeah, if you're to account for that, which we know happened in 2016, then that would
put him just ahead.
I think that I made a bet with my brother on the day that Harris announced her run that
I'm not as confident anymore that it's a sure thing.
I think he might still scrape through, but I think that she's run a better campaign than
anyone would have expected at the time, based on what she had been like as VP.
I think there was a lot of underestimating what that campaign would look like.
I don't know the answer.
I will be glued to my television like everybody else come November 5th.
Which channel were you watching?
So you've got to have two screens.
That's why we have three screens in our office.
You watch CNN on one.
You watch Fox on the other.
Somehow they're not even talking about the same thing.
And there you go.
You wouldn't think it's the same election.
Actually, I had Joe Hockey sitting in that chair actually four days ago.
And Joe still thinks Trump can get it.
I think that there's a real chance that he will.
I just think that he obviously would have been far further ahead had Biden stayed in
It'd be a no brainer.
If Biden had stayed on.
But can I ask you this question then?
Not your news outlet, but how do you feel personally as Seidler, as Zara Seidler?
How do you feel personally about the fact that has become, it looks like it comes down
to just a popularity contest.
Who's the most popular?
Because it's not popularity because of policy, it's popularity because of she's better on
TikTok and he's better on Facebook or something.
Hasn't it always been that way?
I can't see any difference.
Now than ever before, I think.
I mean, I think that we don't engage on a deeper level with policy in the way that we
might have when, you know, information wasn't given to us in 10 second bites.
But I don't know that that popularity contest is a new or novel concept.
I think that that's always been the way it's just been through different mediums.
Like, you know, we had JFK and Nixon talking in having their debate on the first televised
Same thing today.
It's just through our phones and on TikTok.
I don't think that it's new.
I think that, you know, we've seen this before.
Except that I would say that JFK was the first television president.
He was better on TV than Nixon.
Yeah, it was his charisma.
He looked a certain way.
He had a charisma about him.
It wouldn't matter whether he was blue or red.
It wouldn't have made no difference.
He was always going to win it as a TV campaigner.
Trump was, well, maybe Obama, but Trump was the first social media president.
And now we'll, and this is all about popularity.
That was sort of my point about popularity, how platforms can build popularity.
She's becoming the TikTok.
She's becoming the latest version of social media, which is, you know, a TikTok president
where you don't have to vote by the way you can, but I'll be compelled to vote because
I'm watching her and I think she's great on TikTok, whereas Trump will go, she's like
I mean, but Trump, I mean, Trump's not dominating TikTok at all.
It's absolutely Harris's space, but he's dominating other platforms.
And I think that-
So which one do you think is going to give?
Do you see some giving it?
I have no, I mean, we know that younger people are on TikTok.
We know that they need to come out in droves in order to push Harris's vote up, but she
has fractured the left, you know, the far left and the moderate left do not agree on
So that might be interesting.
That splinter might not work in her favor.
Whereas, you know, Trump also is facing moderate Republicans who don't want to get behind him
and, you know, since coming out like the Cheneys and saying that they'll support Harris, there's
a splintering on both sides.
I don't know where it lands.
Can you see that happening here in, you know, May or March or April, May, whenever it's
going to be called next year?
I mean, are we moving, I know it's a different sort of process.
We don't have presidents and such, but do we, we do polls, which is the most popular
prime minister or leader of the opposition.
Do you see that creeping into Australian politics and the voting patterns, the voting thinking
I think I look, the Americanization of Australian politics.
I think that we do gravitate more around that centrist mark.
And so I don't see it at the same rate as what we'd see.
So who's close to the center then between the two here in Australia, Dutton and Albo?
I mean, I think that they both say things that would stray them from the center, but
I think that on the face of it, they are both, they do have more common ground than I think
anyone would like to admit.
And I think that we're very lucky to have a country where we don't have a gate.
We don't have a pinhole between the two parties and they can find common ground.
And, you know, we can have state premiers agree with federal opposition leaders and the
like. And I think that we're in a very lucky country as a result of that.
Oh, because I'd be just interested in something like you switched on, especially for your
generation. You're a great representation of a generation and you definitely switched on
to your generation because that's what your business is.
Do you think there's room for a new party in the middle of it all?
Because, I mean, we.
I saw how well the Teals did.
You know, for no real particular reason.
They just took ground from the Liberals.
I mean, but they had a bloody strong campaign.
And they, I must confess, I did work for an independent in my past life.
So come to that with what you will.
But I think that, you know, that was, that was a real moment in time.
They were able to galvanize on many key areas that, as you said, the Liberal Party were
Whether there will be another version.
I think that there might be an assortment of independents that are more right of centre
that I could imagine seeing in more socially conservative spaces.
But we'd have to wait and see.
We still got a long time before the next election.
Do you think the likes of Murdoch and that still have huge influence on Australia?
I think it's waiting.
Older generation or younger generation?
I mean, when you own two thirds of the media market.
That spreads to everyone.
I think that social media is decentralizing that power.
Social media is decentralizing.
And that, you know, little old me can build a company that can hopefully sustain itself.
But I don't think that the power of Murdoch or Nine in this country can be underestimated.
I think it's very difficult to be a new player when there are such entrenched concentrations
But that's why we're doing it.
We want to be able to change that.
We think that the more people in the market, the better.
But doesn't your generation?
And I'm suspecting from our early part of the conversation, you're like sort of closing
that gap to 30, but not there.
Isn't that just a matter of time?
Because very few people under the age of 30 even read a newspaper.
A physical newspaper.
Or a lot of them don't even subscribe to the traditional newspapers, digital platforms.
And so over time, you know, if you hang in here long enough,
you'll become the traditional digital news for generations to come.
Well, I think that when we're talking about young people, again,
I don't want to create a homogenous group.
You know, regional and rural young people will have access to a Murdoch paper much easier
than anyone else would.
Because mum and dad probably buy it.
And so I think nothing can be grouped as a whole.
But no, we want to keep innovating.
We want to create.
We don't want to age up with our audience.
We want to create a space for young people.
We think they're the ones who are underserved.
I think as you get older, there are many options as to where you can access the news.
We think that the stories of young people, you know, the housing market, whatever it is,
we can tell those stories well.
And we want to continue to do that.
So you must do these surveys or polls.
But what are the big issues, apart from the obvious stuff like environment and DV
and all those sorts of things that are sort of specific,
is cost of living the biggest issue?
For your audience?
And we've seen that change over time.
It was climate and it is now cost of living.
Cracking into the housing market and rental prices.
We know that young people can't afford homes.
We know that they're giving up on any aspiration of owning a home.
There is this like lifetime commitment to renting that our generation is just kind of
feeling like that is the only way because of what they're looking at and what they're seeing.
And so I think that's the angle of the cost of living crisis that is most
poignant, I guess, in our demographic.
More so than anything.
More so than anything else, I'd say.
So as your news outlet gets older and as you get older, you're going to have this dichotomy
or this sort of confidence events where you're trying to retain those people who you already
got who are getting older.
They've got different views.
And then you're going to try and bring in, recruit those new people who've got totally
different ideas to the people who are, say, 35.
Sounds like a contest of ideas to me.
Yeah, it's a contest of ideas.
How do you approach that?
I mean, how do you approach it?
Because you're no longer, how do you stay in contact?
You call me old already at 27.
But when you're 35.
And all your 27-year-olds who follow your outlet now are now 35.
And obviously that's a stupid thing because some of them are already probably going to be 35.
Some of them might be 40 then.
For argument's sake.
Just for argument's sake.
But then all of a sudden you're, but also you want to stick to your original plan.
You want to get 19, 20-year-olds.
How do you, how will you bridge that gap?
How will Zara side level bridge that gap?
That's an excellent question.
We are recruiting the next leaders of the Daily Oz.
We have 20-year-olds in our company who are still at university.
And instead of going into legacy publishers, they're coming to work for us.
And they're learning strategy.
They're learning everything there is to know about building a company from the ground up.
And that means that, you know, at the time where I'm no longer the right leader,
we've got a pool full of incredible young, talented people who have been here since day dot.
And I'll know when it's my time.
So Zara and Sam will be the major shareholders.
Is there a risk that you're going to say, hang on a minute, there's no way in the world
that I will allow this group of 20-year-olds to influence the outcomes of what we've created
over a, let's call it a 20-year period.
I mean, how do you resist that?
It's a process because I'm not going to let you fuck up what I've created over the last 10, 15 years.
It's all about having the right people in the room.
And like the people that we have in our room.
People think the way you think or?
No, just like, again, different life experiences.
Like we have a newsroom that genuinely reflects the diversity of the Australian experience.
We have people from all walks of life and they bring with them all sorts of ideas and whatever else.
And they know what works for different audiences.
It's about finding the right platforms.
Instagram is not going to be the dominant platform for much longer.
Where else are we looking for young people?
Where are we meeting them?
What are we doing for them?
How are we bringing them information?
And I think we're okay in the sense that you were just highlighting because we don't do opinion,
because we don't do commentary.
So it's never been the Zara and Sam show.
It's always been about let the facts do the talking and take it from there.
And that will continue to be the way.
I wish I was young enough to say that in 30 years' time,
assuming you don't sell this to somebody, but in 30 years' time,
I'm not going to do that.
Maybe I could get there.
Maybe, maybe not.
But in 30 years' time, I could be sitting here across from Zara and say,
Zara, do you remember 30 years ago when we had this conversation?
Well, it's funny you say that because Sam and I often laugh.
We wanted to do things really differently.
We said we were going to do things differently from day dot.
And one of the things we did was get up at a conference and say,
we'll never do advertising.
And then that was the day we learned to never say never.
And our business is predominantly advertising based.
Yeah, because that's how you make.
You've got to make money.
You've got to make money.
You've got to pay people.
We were lovely, naive, ignorant 20-something-year-olds who thought
there's this magic button that makes you a commercial business.
Just don't quite know what it is.
Without any revenue.
By the way, I'm not saying that about 30 years' time in a cynical way.
I'm just really curious to see how it all rolls out and, you know,
whether or not you sort of restructure the business and, you know,
put in non-voting shares and voting shares.
And then change my name to Murdoch and there you go.
Well, I don't see that happening.
But how are you keeping in touch with the younger generation?
It'll be a challenge.
The younger, younger generation.
In 30 years' time there'll be, you know, there'll be –
because I see generations now as 10-year periods.
It used to be like 25, 10-year periods.
So when you're 40, you'll be in the 40- to 50-year-old generation.
There'll be a 40-to-30 and be a 30-to-20.
There'll be two generations before you, below you, so to speak.
I'm so curious to see how you maintain your position
because by then you'll be earning millions and millions of dollars every year
and you'll be living in Point Piper.
You'll be living in Point Piper and you'll have a yacht.
I've always heard that media is a really lucrative business.
You're one person and one person only.
Well, no, but I'm curious to see how it's going.
And actually I want to say to you that I think the way you have formatted
your news is really, really good.
I think it's brilliant, really, really is brilliant.
I actually tried to copy.
You and the Greatest Form.
Yeah, as you say, the Greatest Form of Remembrance is copying somebody
but it didn't work out in our case.
Two, I think that the process of picking an audience and sticking to that
and just being facts, I like that because that's how news originally was done for me.
But I think there's going to be lots of challenges.
You've got some behemoths that you're taking on who are going to try
and steal your position.
It's never going to stop.
But also brilliant.
Really good that you come in.
Say hello to Sam for me.
Thanks for having me.
Not all that long ago, money was simple.
You earned it, saved some, spent some, and maybe invested in a house if you were lucky.
No apps, no online banking, no thinking beyond what was in your wallet.
But times have changed.
In today's money market, growth can come in many ways.
And the way we think about it,
cash is continuously evolving.
Enter Australia's highest rated crypto exchange, SwiftX.
Whether you are just starting to explore the crypto market or are already deep in the game,
SwiftX makes it easy to acquire, sell, and trade digital assets all in one place.
So if you're someone who's thought about dipping your toes in the crypto market,
but isn't sure where to start, this might be for you.
Visit swiftx.app forward slash Mark Boris.
If you've been listening along for a while, you'll know I'm all about staying sharp physically and mentally.
As I get older, staying on top of my game means being smarter with how I support my body and mind day in, day out.
One product I've already added to my routine from the bulk nutrients range is their NMN Extend.
It's a science-backed blend of 10 powerful ingredients, including NMN, resveratrol, and hyaluronic acid.
Now, this is designed.
It's designed to support everything from energy and muscle recovery to skin hydration, joint health, and even mental clarity.
And by the way, I need all those.
Whether I'm powering through a busy week or just investing in my long-term health,
NMN Extend helped me stay ready for whatever's next.
And believe me, it tastes pretty good too.
Head to bulknutrients.com.au and see why NMN Extend might be the edge you've just been looking for.