Nine’s Stefanovic double standard exposed

Dr. Nine’s decision to sack Karl Stefanovic over a far-right interview raises questions about where the broadcaster chooses to draw the line, writes Victoria Fielding.

I would like to make it clear from the start that I have no sympathy for the sacked Channel 9. Today presenter Karl Stefanovich.

Still, I find it interesting to think that Channel 9’s point of no return was Stefanovic’s interview with the influential British far-right activist. tommy robinson. Considering what else Stefanovic brings to the platform on his podcast, why draw the line at Robinson?

Since launching his independent podcast titled The Karl Stefanovic Show In January 2026, Stefanovic has steadily turned into a stupid and mostly harmless man. Today turned the television presenter into a far-right provocateur.

This descent into extremism, this mainstreaming of far-right hatred, bigotry and racism, is a microcosm of a broader phenomenon of Australia’s descent into far-right politics, with increasing support for the anti-immigrant party. Pauline HansonOne Nation.

Talking about Stefanovic’s firing from Nine, Guard‘s Nur Haydar, Amanda Meade And Ben Doherty He describes Stefanovic’s interview with Robinson as crossing the line. Doherty argues that Stefanovic did not interview Robinson, implying that this was the act of a journalist, but rather that he helped bring Robinson’s lies about rape and murders into the mainstream (Lies about Syrian refugees) with “Swallow it whole”.

In fact, instead of examining these lies and the racism that underpins them, Doherty details how Stefanovic came to be. “giggles, minimizes” and tells Robinson how much he admires him. “resolution”. In other words, Stefanovic revealed that he was not a podcasting journalist, but an activist supporting the Far Right.

It’s clear from Channel 9’s sacking of Stefanovic that his embrace of Robinson was too much for the organisation’s brand to bear.

nines declaration said:

‘Nine Entertainment and Karl Stefanovic have agreed that it is no longer possible for him to host Today simultaneously with his independent podcast.’

But Stefanovic might have asked how Robinson knew it was an interview that was too forward, considering what he had already dodged in other interviews with far-right figures.

one of them interviews She was with a One Nation politician Barnaby Joyce. Sitting on hay bales, dressed as a cowboy and even chewing a piece of hay, Stefanovic asked Joyce: “How many immigrants should we take in each year?”

Joyce’s response was:

They should ask how many of your houses are free, how many hospitals are working well, how many schools are not crowded. What kind of people do you need? Do you need unemployed people to have babies, or do you need builders?

Then you say we can absorb this many people. And we will say: Here is the contract. Do you want to live in Australia? There are two things you cannot be. On crime pages or social security.

And I don’t care whether you come from the Vatican, Central America, Central Africa, or the middle of Europe. If you’re nostalgic for where you’re from and you say you really want Australia to be like the shithole I’m from, go back there.

As Joyce speaks, the video cuts to footage of Stefanovic grinning, nodding and even giggling at Joyce, clearly enjoying and agreeing with Joyce’s reckless statements.

But it looks like Nine had no problem with this interview. Indeed, no major news outlet thought it newsworthy that a powerful politician was spreading racist disinformation about immigrants, accusing them of being criminals, cheating on benefits, stealing Australian homes, cracking down on the hospital and education system, and wanting to make the country more like the United States. “shithole” They came from This interview generated zero pushback against either Joyce or Stefanovic.

Yet no one seems to want to draw a comparison between what Joyce says about immigrants and the stories Robinson tells to incite hatred against non-White people in the UK for political purposes. They may not use exactly the same words, but they tell the same story for the same reasons, and Stefanovic’s interviews with both had the same impact.

In fact, Robinson and Joyce are not the same. Robinson is a British activist, not an Australian politician. These are equally extreme, but Joyce has much more power to mainstream far-right ideas and radicalize others because he is legitimized through the institutional power of the Australian Parliament.

Stefanovic also draws on the institutional power of mainstream media when presenting his podcast. In this highly profitable side venture, Stefanovic presents himself as an independent journalist and describes his program as follows: ‘This is where I’m really curious. ‘A few decades in television have given me a strong BS meter and the ability to spot a great story.’. Stefanovic uses the mask of journalism to support the far right.

It’s incredibly telling that Nine was happy for Stefanovic to legitimize One Nation’s racist and hateful anti-immigration rhetoric, but drew the line at Robinson, an activist most Australians have never heard of.

How could Stefanovic have known that giggling with Robinson would get him fired when he had done the same thing to the extremist and much more powerful Barnaby Joyce?