Media Dragon
Daily Dose of Dust
Jozef Imrich, name worthy of Kafka, has his finger on the pulse of any irony of interest and shares his findings to keep you in-the-know with the savviest trend setters and infomaniacs.
''I want to stay as close to the edge as I can without going over. Out on the edge you see all kinds of things you can't see from the center.''
-Kurt Vonnegut
Powered by His Story: Cold River
Monday, October 26, 2026
If the Democrats win the midterms, a lot of people are going to prison
We asked dozens of librarians about America’s libraries
“A republic, if you can keep it,” the wise man once said
We asked dozens of librarians about America’s libraries
The New York Times gift article – ….and what they provide, what they need to survive. “This year, Americans are marking the 250th anniversary of the country’s founding. The nation’s librarians are celebrating a milestone too: the 150th birthday of the modern American library.
A lot has changed since the American Library Association was established in 1876 — even just over the past decade. The library has gone from a building full of books to arguably the most versatile civic center in any community lucky enough to have one.
We spoke with dozens of librarians at the A.L.A. conference this summer in Chicago. They came from rural towns and major cities, elementary schools and universities, local branches and big government agencies. These librarians want you to know that they don’t sit around reading all day.
They want you to know about book bans and budget cuts, but also about career counseling and crafting groups and pop-up medical clinics. They want you to worry, the way they worry, about artificial intelligence, looming legislation and harassment of their staff.
But most of all, they want you to know what the library really is: a safe place for people to gather around books, ideas and one another. Here’s what librarians had to say, in their own words..”
Leaked chats show Russian extortion gang sending ‘agents’ into US law firms
ATO worker fired for allegedly accessing taxation information for stalking purposes
The Federal Court has given a former ATO worker leave to amend his originating application against the Tax Office’s termination decision against him, following his dismissal for breach of the Australian Public Service Code of Conduct.
‘Never seen this before’: $860k ATO audit leaves accountant baffled
Order of Australia recipients Benjamin and Roberta Chow lose $2.5m tax court battle
2 ex-FBI officials charged with lying to Congress about Hunter Biden laptop probe
Brendan Carr warns broadcasters about ‘fake polls’ as a real polling scandal unfolds
Carr didn’t identify the polls he was targeting but warned that broadcasters could run afoul of their federal licenses
Leaked chats show Russian extortion gang sending ‘agents’ into US law firms
The Record: “Members of a Russia-based cyberextortion gang plotted to send operatives into U.S. law firms, kidnap business executives and even recruit military personnel to spy on submarine-based nuclear forces, according to leaked chats reviewed by Recorded Future News.
The archive, posted to a bespoke .onion site in early October by an unidentified source who did not state a motive, contains thousands of messages from August 2025 to September 2026. In those messages, members track dozens of victims, haggle over multimillion-dollar payments and direct operatives based in the United States whom they call “agents.” Some of the named organizations have not publicly acknowledged a breach. The archive mixes apparent records of real extortion with brainstorming sessions, abandoned plans, boasting and violent fantasies. Recorded Future News could not verify whether the most extreme schemes were ever attempted.
However, parts of the cache have been corroborated independently. Blockchain analysis firm Chainalysis examined cryptocurrency addresses contained in the leak and said it could tie them to known extortions by the Silent Ransom Group, which is also tracked as Luna Moth and Chatty Spider. The company cautioned that it could not “speak to the totality of claims” documented in the archive. The FBI has also documented the group’s most unusual tactic for a Russian extortion group: recruiting what the gang calls “agents” to physically infiltrate victims’ offices. A flash alert earlier this year warned that members of the Silent Ransom Group were posing as IT personnel to gain physical access to computers.
In one negotiation shared in the chats, a law firm’s representative told the extortionists that the firm knew an individual had entered its New York office and copied files onto a flash drive. The firm said its executives had authorized $1 million to settle the demand but wanted proof that every digital and physical copy of its information would be destroyed, citing evidence that the LockBit ransomware gang had failed to delete data belonging to victims who paid…”
AI-attributed layoffs are a household money story
Public Engagement @CAIS: Wage Loss Dashboard. Layoff totals describe how many jobs disappeared. Wage estimates begin to show what those cuts can mean for households and local economies. Experts predict that AI’s effect on the economy will be transformational in the near term. They specifically cite risks like large-scale job displacement.
We agree. There has been significant news coverage of job loss from AI, but it can be hard to quantify how these cuts affect the average person’s finances. A recent report on job-cut announcements by Challenger, Gray & Christmas tracks layoff announcements across the country. In 2025, they identified more than 54,000 job cuts that companies reported were linked to AI.
This works out to about 1 in 20 of all layoffs that year. This dashboard aims to help illuminate the monetary costs of AI on American families and communities. A single software engineer losing their job can mean $90,000 or more a year gone from local spending on rent, groceries, childcare, or with small businesses.
AI is also reportedly replacing workers in customer service, software, data entry, writing, legal research, and more. One person’s layoff means less income for every business they support. Multiply that effect across thousands of workers in multiple industries, and you start to see the real economic weight of AI displacement. In addition, AI-attributed job cuts aren’t spread evenly. States with large tech and media sectors are experiencing greater impact…”
The many barriers young adults must overcome to vote
SciLine – A research based reporting guide: “This guide offers insights, tips, and story ideas to help journalists report on Generation Z’s voting habits. Nearly 50 million adults aged 18 to 29 will be eligible to vote in the 2026 midterm elections, making Generation Z potentially one of the nation’s most powerful and influential voting blocs.
The reality is that many Americans in this age group do not vote, a problem that researchers have studied for decades. Meanwhile, a number of new laws and policy proposals across the U.S. may make it even harder for young people to register to vote and cast their ballots on time. We created this guide to encourage journalists to examine independent, nonpartisan research about youth voting patterns and obstacles and to use that knowledge to ground their coverage of the 2026 midterm elections.
Historically, young adults have voted at lower rates than older adults. Less than a third of U.S. citizens aged 18 to 29 voted during the 2022 midterm elections, compared with 47% of voters aged 30 to 44, 58% of voters aged 45 to 64, and 67% of voters aged 65 and older, the U.S. Census Bureau estimates. Even so, social scientists warn journalists not to equate a lack of voting with political apathy. “A lot of our research shows young people deeply value democracy,” says Sara Suzuki, a senior researcher at the Tufts University Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning and Engagement.
Commonly known as CIRCLE, the center is a leading, nonpartisan source of data and analysis on the country’s youngest voters. These voters, whom scholars refer to as youth voters, must overcome a series of structural and logistical hurdles to participate in elections, Suzuki says. Election laws in some states make voting more difficult for college students in particular, especially students who have a permanent residence in one state but live in a different state during the academic year…”
WSJ new AI tool, “Doppler,” forecasts issues that will shape midterm elections
NiemnLab: “Ahead of Election Day, the tool has ingested 25 million TikTok videos and 500,000 podcasts to gain new insight into U.S. voters.
More than 100 million voters are expected to cast ballots in the 2026 U.S. midterm elections. In recent election cycles, political reporting based on voter polling has drawn criticism, prompted scrutiny, and found defenders. As the debate over the value of polling continues, The Wall Street Journal is exploring new ways to cover public opinion and break out of traditional horse race political coverage.
In late September, the Journal published its first storyusing Doppler News AI, a custom tool built to help expand the publication’s midterms coverage. So far, Doppler has ingested more than 25 million TikTok videos, roughly 500,000 podcast episodes, and thousands of Instagram videos and cable news segments.
The Journal uses the tool to monitor trends across the internet and to identify voter priorities, concerns, and sentiments that traditional polling might miss. “We’re not trying to predict the election, but people encounter politics through a lot of different lanes: culture, work, money, family, community. We wanted to tap into that and listen in on those conversations,” said Aja Whitaker-Moore, the deputy editor-in-chief of the Journal. “We’re taking a massive set of information…and telling you, from a statistical standpoint:
‘Here’s what people are talking about. Here are the questions they’re asking. Here are the places where those conversations are happening.’” Other newsrooms have leaned on AI “visibility tools” in the past to support their reporting. That includes using large language models (LLMs) to transcribe and summarize “manosphere” podcasts, school board meetings, and local talk radio shows. But Doppler goes further…”
The Tax Practitioners Board will also face questioning on what remains of its PwC Australia investigations
Estimates of government expenditure are referred to Senate committees as part of the annual budget cycle.This opportunity to examine the operations of government plays a key role in the parliamentary scrutiny of the executive. Quick Links: aph.gov.au/parliamentary_business/senate_estimates
Dr Ian Watt documented KPMG Australia’s various sins already aired publicly, and he concluded that KPMG Australia should not be sent to some consultant’s equivalent of Siberia for past misconduct by audit partners.
Watt recommends a similar pattern of activity to that which took place when PwC Australia was pinged by the Tax Practitioners Board for its historical breach of confidentiality agreements.
Finance has extended the firm’s ban — a restriction on bidding for new work — until the end of February, but that will make the Greens see red. Senator Barbara Pocock will have her list of questions on the KPMG saga at the ready.
Her numerous media releases over the past four months relating to the firm’s contract variations have telegraphed where her line of questioning of bureaucrats will head throughout the next week.
The Watt review and many other KPMG Australia reviews will provide Pocock and her colleagues with additional insight because the firm’s public release of documents will confirm to Pocock and fellow Senate interrogators Deborah O’Neill and Paul Scarr that reforms in the accounting sector and whistleblower laws should be made a high priority.
Those three parliamentarians will approach things with degrees of nuance, but they are all agreed on one thing: the accounting profession needs to be better regulated, better monitored, and have stronger penalties for misconduct so the firms and their staff are gently encourage to focus on the public interest in addition to profit generation.
Wait until multiple questions from all directions — not just from Pocock — get asked during economics committee estimates, given that the Treasury, Australian Securities and Investments Commission, and the Tax Practitioners Board have KPMG-related issues in their work in progress.
Treasury is in the middle of working through responses to its options paper on accounting profession reform.
Senators will be anxious to understand where that reform process is at and whether there is any chance of getting much in the way of change within the next 12 months.
ASIC executives will need to have their cheat notes ready when it comes to explaining how they are progressing with the investigations into KPMG Australia. These include investigations into auditors involved in the various confidentiality breaches that have been at the centre of political and media discourse since March this year.
The Tax Practitioners Board will also face questioning on what remains of its PwC Australia investigations as well as what, if anything, the tax agent regulator has managed to excavate from its dig into KPMG Australia.
Treasury will also need to expect questions on the issue of increased reporting thresholds for private companies because there is an active debate within the business community on whether scope three emissions reports under sustainability reporting rules actually provides any benefit whatsoever.
The thresholds for reporting for private companies have historically been a thorny issue — increasing them has been an arbitrary exercise by public servants — so expect Treasury to cop any number of ‘please explain’ questions.
There is also bound to be a truckload of questions for the Australian Taxation Office where the credit card ban decision is concerned.
ATO officials will be unable to dodge queries related to those matters, and senators of all stripes will be ready for ministerial deflections that point to the prime minister and treasurer having delayed implementation of a ban.
All that is left for people across Canberra and elsewhere watching the livestream is to stock up on microwave popcorn and their favourite soft drink, and watch to see whether anybody actually bothers to turn down the heat of the debate.
The new KPI for public servants: Avoiding a viral Senate moment
Since 1970, Senate estimates hearings have exposed and explored political scandals and governance failures, from the loans affair in the Whitlam era to the children overboard saga during the Howard years and, more recently, robo-debt.
(Dr Russell Cope’s fearless parliamentary colleague) the late Harry Evans was the clerk of the Senate between 1988 and 2009. He described Senate estimates as a general inquisition into the operations of government, saying:
“The ultimate safeguard against the misuse of power by a government is the ability of its opponents and rivals to find out about, and draw attention to, its mistakes and misdeeds. Accountability is not a refined process which operates on an elevated plane, above sordid politics. Accountability operates down in the swamp of politics, amongst the crocodiles and mosquitoes. The political wetlands sustain our cultural life and biodiversity; without them the desert of despotism assumes the landscape.”
Treasury secretary Jenny Wilkinson during a Senate estimates hearing at Parliament House in Canberra. Alex Ellinghausen
There are eight Senate estimates committees that meet three times a year. Each committee has four days to conduct hearings that typically run from 9am until 11pm.
The Senate doesn’t sit at the same time as estimates hearings, so any senator, not just those on the relevant committee, can ask questions.
In Parliament House’s committee rooms, the chair sits on one side with the committee secretary nearby. They are surrounded by senators from the opposition, minor parties, independents and government backbenchers.
On the other side, the witnesses are senior public servants who sit at a long table with the minister (or their representative from the Senate) in the centre. In the rows behind are more public servants and ministerial staff, and the hearings are open to the media and the public.
Television cameras are fixed unobtrusively around the room, recording continuously, and Hansard reporters sit at a side table, producing the official transcript.
A daunting prospect
Estimates hearings are resource intensive. In preparation, both sides will have scoured departments’ portfolio budget statements, corporate plans and annual reports as well as the outcomes of appointments, grants, tenders and audit reports.
They will have reviewed Hansard records and answers to questions on notice, along with freedom of information disclosure logs and recent media coverage. Today it’s likely both sides will have used a variety of AI tools in their preparation.
In the weeks leading up to estimates, public servants will have prepared those large, tabbed folders of briefing materials you see on the tables. Both sides will have held strategy meetings. Witnesses will have practised answers at mock estimates sessions.
Appearing at estimates can be a daunting prospect for public servants, who typically operate behind the scenes. I’ve heard it described as “the hardest open-book exam you will ever do”, and everyone who has appeared remembers their first time. For me, it was a then-government backbencher looking to get information about coal exports on the record.
Estimates is theatre. The hearings are televised live and recorded. While the actors are sitting in the room, many of the questions senators ask are developed outside the room during the hearings and fed in electronically.
Most witnesses will want to appear helpful but say little beyond what is on the public record. They will be keen to show their professionalism and capability in handling any difficult questions they face. Their job can depend on it.
“Former senator Robert Hill observed that few parliaments scrutinise government finances as intensely as the Australian Senate.”
Most public servants do not want to become the story, and a long-running KPI has been to avoid appearing on the evening news or the front page of tomorrow’s paper. Today, the KPI includes avoiding providing a soundbite that could go viral or a video clip that could do the rounds on TikTok.
Public servants must remain apolitical. The government guidelines for witnesses highlight their duty to assist ministers fulfil their accountability obligations by providing “full and accurate information to the parliament about the factual and technical background to policies and their administration”. They also have a responsibility to the government of the day. It’s a balance.
So, is Senate estimates effective?
Yes, in terms of adding to the transparency, openness and accountability of government. Former senator Robert Hill observed that few parliaments around the world scrutinise government finances as intensely as the Australian Senate, and former senator John Faulkner described Senate estimates as the “best accountability mechanism of any Australian parliament”.
Could we do better? Again, yes. Twenty years ago, there was a concern that a growing number of questions were being taken on notice by public servants. Today, the number of questions on notice being asked by the senators is growing exponentially.
The Parliament House website lists more than 11,000 questions on notice asked this year before this round of hearings began. That’s an average of 77 every day, including weekends, a number that has more than tripled since 2022.
While the answers contribute to the transparency and accountability of government, responding to so many questions must be consuming an enormous amount of time and diverting resources away from other public service work. While AI is probably used in drafting questions and answers, the responses can’t be left solely to AI because they require human judgment and multiple layers of clearances including by the relevant minister.
Given a key question public servants consider in their daily work is “Will this survive scrutiny at estimates?”, these hearings continue to provide a key accountability mechanism for government, but they come at a growing cost. Harry Evans said accountability operates in the swamp of politics, but perhaps it’s time to limit the number of fishing expeditions being conducted in the swamp.
‘Outrageous’: Senators slam public service push to restrict social clips
Senators are demanding the government produce evidence justifying a call by top civil servants to ban MPs from posting unflattering video clips of them on social media, in an escalating row over transparency and parliamentary scrutiny.
The Senate is heading for a showdown with the public service after the deputy secretary for security and estate at the Defence Department, Celia Perkins, told a parliamentary inquiry on Friday that officials did “not consent to the reposting of our evidence to social media sites”.
Independent senator David Pocock. Dominic Lorrimer
Perkins’ request that video evidence given at inquiries not be reposted was overruled by committee clerks, but departmental chiefs have also presented a “secretaries board” submission to a parliamentary standards inquiry asking for an end to the use of social media posts taken from parliament hearings which they say are “presented without context and expose officials to ridicule, hostility or abuse”.
Politicians condemned the demands. Greens senator David Shoebridge called the move an “extraordinary” attempt at censorship, while independent senator David Pocock denounced the public service’s stance as “frankly outrageous”.
“The officials in question are not junior public servants in need of protection, they are senior executives on a base salary over $400,000 whose role includes responding to this kind of scrutiny,” Pocock said.
Pocock, Shoebridge, and Liberal senator Michaelia Cash will push for a vote in the Senate on Wednesday to force the government to produce documents underpinning the public service’s requests to curtail social media posts.
The senators on Tuesday intend to invoke two powerful “orders for the production of documents” to push government ministers to reveal all documentation and communication related to Perkins’ statement and the secretaries board submission, including legal advice and material prompting the requests.
“Committee hearings are public proceedings and – with the exception of in-camera sessions – there should be no barriers to content being shared with the community, be that via parliamentary broadcast or on social media,” said Pocock.
“Transparency is essential to a healthy democracy and these demands are frankly outrageous. Real questions remain over whether this stance was encouraged or orchestrated by the government.”
The submission from the nation’s most senior mandarins was tabled to an unprecedented joint parliamentary inquiry into the behaviour codes and standards in Commonwealth parliamentary workplaces, launched without fanfare in June.
The secretaries board – made up of the heads of government departments and chaired by the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet chief, Steven Kennedy – insisted the request for tighter guidelines was not an attempt to avoid robust questioning or “legitimate and necessary” scrutiny.
Hearings, inquiries and Senate estimates are all livestreamed for public viewing.
“The concern arises only where conduct crosses the line into behaviour that demeans, intimidates, humiliates or personally targets official witnesses,” it said, warning of potential “psychosocial” health hazards.
It warned that comments sections under social media posts could become “highly offensive and sometimes defamatory”, with officials being attacked over their physical appearance and women targeted in particular. Agencies had been required in some situations to conduct insider threat assessments.
Officials had been referred to as “despicable”, “filth”, “political puppet”, “bigot”, “pig”, “KKK member”, “sleazy”, “incompetent retard”, “parasite”, “stupid”, “shill”, “demonic”, “putrid mutt”, “criminal”, “fraud”, “clown”, “scumbag”, “lying corrupt grub”, the submission said.
Among the department officials’ requests are the explicit adoption of behaviour standards and the behaviour code for the examination of witnesses, guidance for the treatment of witnesses and social media use and education for MPs on the role of the public service.
Former Home Affairs secretary Mike Pezzullo, who appeared in parliament some 200 times over 21 years, said official witnesses should never be ridiculed but it was “entirely appropriate” for MPs to “highlight instances of officials being evasive, obstructive, and in some cases clearly not across their brief”.
“Use of social media is one way to do this. There is no place for crude, rude, or sneering imputations being made in such social media activity, and the parliament’s own behaviour code makes that clear,” he said.
“We all know such behaviour when we see it. If a member of parliament has fallen short in this regard, it is for the relevant house of parliament to take action, as it sees fit.”
A Defence spokesperson said the department strongly supported parliamentary “accountability, transparency and robust scrutiny” but was concerned about social media excerpts “presented without context” that “exposes officials to ridicule, hostility or abuse”.
Gallagher says public servants' careers have been ruined by Senate estimates


