Transcript

How are everyday Australians experiencing misinformation in their daily lives, and why does it feel increasingly overwhelming?

How are platforms and algorithms shaping what we see? What impact is this having on trust in institutions, political decision-making and social cohesion?

What does a healthy democratic information space look like?

In this episode, Tanya Notley and Ika Trijsburg join Sally Bulkeley in conversation to explore the convergence of misinformation, media literacy and democratic resilience.

Transcript

(This transcript is AI-generated and may contain inaccuracies.) 

Tanya Notley

I think ultimately when we think about regulation, we need to think about the control people deserve and need in order to make informed decisions.

Ika Trijsburg

We see elected representatives are increasingly being targeted by disinformation. And we're seeing that they're increasingly self-selecting out.

National Security Podcast  

You're listening to the National Security Podcast, the show that brings you expert analysis, insights and opinion on the national security challenges facing Australia and the Indo-Pacific produced by the ANU National Security College.

Sally Bulkeley

Welcome to the National Security Podcast. I'm Sally Bulkeley, Deputy Head of ANU National Security College. And today's podcast is being recorded on the lands of the Ngunnawal and Ngambri people. And I pay my respects to their elders past and present. Today I'm delighted to introduce our special guests, Tanya Notley and Ika Trijsburg, to discuss the convergence of misinformation, media literacy and democratic resilience. Dr Tanya Notley is a Professor in the School of Arts and Institute for Culture and Society at Western Sydney University. She's internationally recognised for extensive experience working with NGOs, government agencies, universities and the United Nations agencies. In the areas of digital inclusion and media literacy. Dr Notley is a founding member of the Australian Media Literacy Alliance, serving as the co-chair between 2020 to 2023. And for the past three years, Tanya has been working with a team of researchers to examine the everyday experience of misinformation in Australia and to look at how media literacy can be used to address this challenge. Ika Trijsburg is Director of Urban Analytics at the ANU Institute for Infrastructure and Society in the Crawford School for Public Policy and Head of Democracy and Diplomacy at Municipal Association of Victoria. Ika leads the Disinformation in the City project across five Australian universities which she initiated within the Melbourne Centre for Cities. She was the lead author of the world first Disinformation in the City Response Playgroup in 2024, co-created with 40 cross sector experts globally. Ika has provided policy guidance to key actors globally, including cities, national governments, G7RM, council of Europe and UN Habitat. Ika and Tanya, welcome to the national security podcast.

 Ika Trijsburg

Thank you very much.

Tanya Notley

Thanks Sally.

Sally Bulkeley

I thought we might start off firstly at looking at the concepts of misinformation and disinformation. And Ika, if we could start with you first. We hear the words misinformation and disinformation constantly, but why do they matter so much right now for democracy?

Ika Trijsburg

Thank you. I mean, I think they matter so much right now for everything. They've been ranked the top global risk twice now in the World Economic Forum's global risk report. And this year have been pipped at the top place, but still ranked second. So it's pretty hard to overstate the significance of mis- and disinformation. When we're looking specifically at democracy, there's sort of four key areas where we see impact. The first is around elections and governance. So calling into question the integrity of electoral agencies, but also manipulating voter behaviour and the ways that we can use lies, we can use fabricated information to sway public opinion and also in governance, in the experience of those who are elected to govern us, in the way they're targeted and in what that means in terms of the way that they are able to make decisions together. Then there's policy making. So we know there are also particularly certain areas of policy making that are particularly targeted by disinformation, whether that's around trying to create false impressions of public opinion through astroturfing or other misrepresentation, whether it's around providing falsified scientific evidence or around trying to create polarisation around particular issues and drive wedges where we have existing social fault lines. Then there's institutional trust. This impacts things like public participation, it impacts social licence, it impacts the way that we interact with the institutions that serve us and that govern us and through social cohesion. Disinformation is something that drives significant division in our communities and that also erodes our capacity to function democratically.

Sally Bulkeley

Thanks Ika, Tanya do you have anything further to say on that as well? I know there's quite a few symptoms that were outlined just then by Ika in regards to misinformation, disinformation.

Tanya Notley

Yeah well I would agree with all of those but I think one of the consequences is the level of concern people have about this issue. So it's a growing anxiety and there are consequences to that to people feeling like this is a real problem that's not being addressed properly and their ability to make informed decisions feels diminished. But I think you know it's important to remember of course misinformation has always existed, people have always created it for political, social, financial reasons. What I think, you know, has really changed now is the, in quite a short period really, relatively speaking, is the technologies that are now mediating almost all of our information access. So, you know, for one, we have so much information available to us and this is actually becoming, and this really came out from our research, really overwhelming for people. When people feel information overload, they feel stress, they feel anxiety. And one of the really worrying things is that it leads them to news and information avoidance where they just can't really handle anymore. So that even further exasperates the problem because they're not then getting access to that high quality, more trustworthy information that they would otherwise be actively seeking out. So, you know, the weight of this, people in Australia and people all around the world are really feeling and that really came out very, very stark finding from our research.

Sally Bulkeley

Tanya you make a really good point about people feeling overwhelmed by the wealth of information that's both solicited and unsolicited information that comes into their information exchange? Where do everyday Australians mostly encounter misinformation without realising it? So that feeling of overwhelmingness is there, it's conscious, but there's this subconscious activity taking place, no doubt as well, to get to that point.

Tanya Notley

Yeah, so, you know as you mentioned, we've been working on this research project for the past three years, and that's with a team of researchers from my own university, Western Sydney, Queensland University of Technology, University of Canberra and RMIT. And we really wanted to understand this everyday experience of misinformation. It's actually really hard to get at because, you know, you can do things like a survey and ask about people's experience, but that's a very different thing to kind of recording it in situ. And in fact, you know, what we ended up doing was a host of quantitative and qualitative methods that really complement one another. So yes, we did the national survey. We tested over 2000 adults to see if they are able to verify information when they try to do that. And then we also did qualitative research, like a diary study, looking at how people are making everyday decisions about who and what to trust in an average week and we did follow up interviews. So it's this incredibly rich data set that we have learned so much from. What we learned from the national survey, which represents the Australian population, is that the most commonly used form of media is social media. That is the form of media people are using on the most regular basis. And what we can see is that the more social platforms you're using, the more likely you are to report regularly and counting misinformation. There's a very strong association, very strong link. No one will be surprised between social media use misinformation. So this is a real challenge how we deal with those spaces. Of course you know it's addressing misinformation on social media isn't a panacea, it's coming from all different sources but there's a very strong link there and we could really see that when people saved examples across the week, majority of them came from social media, the majority of them were sources that people did not follow, did not want to see content from, people feel out of control of their information feeds and that is a real challenge.

Sally Bulkeley

Tanya, I actually partook in that activity when we last met to look at what was coming through the feed, both solicited and unsolicited. You take five minutes a day and all you have to do is write down what are some of the promotions you're receiving or what's some of that news feed. And interestingly, it had been the demographic of 70 years plus. So what's fundamentally changed in how information spreads? I think, is it platforms, it algorithms? I think just taking that example of my experience, I felt like my algorithm had been compromised, for example, but then I'd been on some other platforms that might have resonated with that. Is there some trend that you have found or is it profoundly ubiquitous across the social media front?

Tanya Notley

Well, I think, you know, one of the big challenges as researchers, but also just as citizens is that not only is our information feed individualized, it's opaque and we really don't know what other people are seeing. And that becomes, makes it really challenging to even have a conversation about misinformation and what it looks like for us and why we're getting it. Certainly you know, algorithms which are driven by commercial technology companies wanting to make money are at the root of this issue. You know, they haven't been designed to give us the best quality information that we're looking for at the time. They have been designed to make money for those platforms. And that's certainly, you know, an issue that we could see again and again that content was being put in front of people because of vested interests, because of commercial motivations. And sometimes it's easier to spot that than others. You know, people form trusted relationships with information providers that might be social media influencers online and it can be harder to see how those actors are making money from you know more followers, more people viewing their content. So there is a lack of understanding about how money is made and I think you know I'm often surprised about that that our knowledge hasn't kept up to date with these changes in terms of the business models that drive the distribution of this media.

Sally Bulkeley

So Tanya, we're talking about trusted relationships through society, erring along social media ownership. Ika, this makes a very difficult environment for us in practicing democracy. How does misinformation alter political decision making and public trust on the basis of that?

Ika Trijsburg

Yeah, similarly in a variety of ways. So I focus at the local level. We look at the ways that political decision making and public trust and other aspects of civic functioning are impacted at the local level by disinformation, but also what capacities we already have and can develop to effectively respond. In terms of the ways that we're impacted, you know, as I mentioned earlier, the scientific evidence base upon which decisions are made, is potentially corrupted. There's the fake evidence bases, fake think tanks that are increasingly generating and disseminating reports, as well as things like astroturfing and the misrepresentation of public opinion, which makes it really difficult for decision makers to understand what their constituents want of them when there's so many fake impressions that are provided by them. Within the chamber, we see elected representatives are increasingly being targeted by disinformation. And we're seeing that they're increasingly self-selecting out. We're seeing that in Australia. We're also seeing that in other parts of the world. It's such a significant issue that  global, observatories have been established in other parts of the globe, in North America and in Europe, to monitor that particular issue. And we know that that disproportionately targets women and racialised groups. And we’re risking losing a wealth of diversity in decision making and representation that we really rely on as a thriving multicultural democracy. And then we also, we’re seeing increased polarisation and hostilities that are driven by disinformation. We're seeing the hijacking of public participation and governance processes. We saw a whole spate of local governments closing their chambers for a period of time. And there's a distrust of community processes that comes with that, not just from community members, but also then from those who are governing as they're increasingly faced by those hostilities and attacks. Then it leads to tighter protections, then it leads to less engagement, then it leads to greater distrust. And then we continue in this cycle. And there was a valuable report that was released last year, I believe it was, looking particularly at the role of trust in the way that Australian governments relate to communities, not just in the way that communities relate to government. And that's very important when we're looking at this as a bidirectional or as a multi-directional trust relationship that we need to build and safeguard if we're going to effectively respond to disinformation.

Sally Bulkeley

And Ika, it can go both ways. There can be a disenfranchisement through politics on what's happening in the social media scene, particularly a hesitancy to provide voice where voice might be misrepresented. But there's the flip side where misinformation might be at the benefit as well of political parties as well. What responsibility do political leaders carry when misinformation benefits them too? I think we see it globally, the global impacts of misinformation do carry an effect in the local environment as well. What role do politics have to play in that?

Ika Trijsburg

I mean, political leaders carry huge responsibility. They're elected to represent the interests of their constituents and those constituents are threatened by health disinformation, climate disinformation, gender disinformation, know, all these things. Disinformation is a risk across the board. It's a risk for business. It's a weapon that can be wielded. It's a risk for emergency services, for hospitals, for the systems that we're relying on to live with and to live healthy lives and to live prosperous lives. So from that perspective, there's a very a heavy burden on political leaders. But political leaders are also significant users of disinformation, which is, I presume, at the core of this question. For this reason, the Welsh Parliament at the moment actually is going through a process of trying to, of pursuing a bill to try to stop politicians from lying, which many eyes around the world are watching with interest to see how that will, how that will play out, if that's possible and who's going to determine who's lying and how that's going to determined and all those sorts of things. But it's got to the point where it's been recognised in many places, not just in Wales, that this is such a significant issue. And we as voters, we actually need to demand better of political leaders when we see these behaviours. We also need better oversights and repercussions whether that's through having a bill as we've seen in Wales or whether it's through Code of Conduct and those sorts of amendments that we've also seen in states and territories around Australia that have been increasingly amended. And we also need peers to keep each other in line. So when we're talking about political representatives, we need the people next to them, not across the chamber, but next to them to actually be helping to encourage people to see the long game a little bit more, and the impacts of democratic erosion, the impacts of institutional erosion of trust and those sorts of things that are going to be detrimental now, but increasingly in the long term, because at the moment so much politics is in that immediate winner takes all mentality and focused on the immediate victory. And there's little regard for the ongoing impacts. And we have people in elected roles in Australia and overseas as well, increasingly, that express anti-democratic views. And this is part of a process that we're seeing globally play out that sort of reflects where that level of erosion within that particular bastion of democratic decision making and representation sits.

National Security Podcast

In this disrupted world. Australia needs security professionals more than ever. Join the next generation studying at the ANU national security College. Our programmes uniquely fuse academic knowledge with practitioner experience and fit around your lifestyle with study offered online and on campus. Follow the link in the show notes for more information about programmes and scholarships, the ANU national security College, engaging minds for a secure Australia.

Sally Bulkeley

So as part of our Community Consultations last year as we journeyed around Australia, the topic of misinformation and understanding the source of truth popped up quite a lot. And there was an overwhelming sense from the people that we interviewed that education is absolutely needed at the moment to combat misinformation. And Tanya, when we met, we did discuss media literacy as an opportunity for managing misinformation, particularly for the individual. I'd be keen to hear from you what that term means. And if you had one hour with an Australian teenager to discuss media literacy, what would you teach them?

Tanya Notley

Okay, thanks Sally. Look, the Australian Media Literacy Alliance, which I'm a member of, define media literacy as the ability to critically engage with all forms of media. And to be media literate, you really need to be doing and increasing your capacity in three areas. So the first is your ability to ask meaningful, critical questions about the media that you consume and create. The second thing is that you need to understand the media environments you're using. And the third is that you need media abilities so that you're able to access, use, analyse and create media. So it's really about those three things together. There is no perfectly media literate person and it's not a place that you reach or even you know that you can get to if you study a three-year degree in media literacy. So instead you know media is always changing, our knowledge and critical thinking and our abilities need to adjust over time as well. Some people will be stronger in some areas because they're really passionate about one type of media because they've had a lot of experience in one area. But obviously if you don't use a type of media like gaming or social media you're going to have less knowledge and abilities in that area. So it really needs to centre around learners and what they know because ultimately media literacy is about being able to use media to fully participate in society and it's about being able to use media to make informed decisions and so you know education needs to support that it needs to really respond to learners so to take your example of the 13 year old look I think where I would start you know and this is probably my researcher hat is to really ask them about what they're using, what their experience is, you know, when do they think they're encountering misinformation, what does that look like for them? And that's because, like I said, media literacy should always be responsive to learners but that would really give me some clues about you know what might be useful for a teenager and we assume or we have assumed that all teenagers are using media literacy all the time actually my research shows it's way more complex than that a lot of teenagers choose not to they use it in very particular ways so it's really quite varied so I'd want to start by learning but I think you know what we know from our research is whether it's teenagers or whether it's adults everyone wants to increase their ability to verify information online. And so, you know, I'd be thinking about, well, what are the critical questions that we know that, there's evidence around this, we know help you when you encounter some information and you're trying to make a decision whether it can be trusted or not. You know, and the very first question is always who created this and why. So those really simple critical questions actually have an impact. They actually get people to stop, deepen their thinking and really start to use their brain to kind of interrogate what vested interest might be the person who's producing that content but also I'd be asking, you know, there any claims made in this and can I verify them from other sources? And I'd be teaching perhaps some basic fact-checking skills which might include you know image verification, verification of facts and claims and how you kind of think about this and go about this but having just studied, you know, people's experience of misinformation over three years, one thing that we have learned is that it is absolutely impossible to fact check everything that you see in five minutes on social media, let alone a day or all the time. So actually the very first question we need to be asking, is this worth my time? You know, and so this is what is referred to as critical ignoring. And I think if people are making more conscious decisions about what they want from their online experiences, what they're expecting it becomes much easier then to say not what I'm after not what I'm looking for I'm not even gonna let that be processed in my brain, moving right along, you know, and they just withhold any trust or distrust and move along and that's really important because the amount of effort and money and time that goes into hijacking our attention is you know phenomenal and overwhelming so that's one tool that we have to respond to that so I'm not even going to give that my attention. I'm not going to spend time fact-checking that because that would take up my time, be a whole process and is not necessary for me. So, you know, I think with media literacy it's about a more comprehensive understanding of, not just you should fact-check everything, that you really need to be making these sort of informed decisions along the way about what you're looking for, what you need, what you need to ignore and when it's worth your time to fact check something.

Sally Bulkeley

That's incredibly valuable advice, particularly for Australians who have other pressures in mind at the moment or have quite big mental loads as well. It's the ability to be able to absorb all of that encompassing and bring your whole self to the context of socials as well.

Tanya Notley

That's right, but it's taxing on people. Even when you're doing that, it's taxing and people don't want it. And it's not so easy as like, know, I've taken back control of my information environment. I think ultimately when we think about regulation, we need to think about the control people deserve and need in order to make informed decisions. So if I never want to see a source or a particular type of content, I should be able to do that. I should be able to have some control public spaces that mediate so much critical information that ultimately we need to ensure that people can take back some control.

Sally Bulkeley

So Ika, in a world where media literacy is up and alive and it's reaching all aspects of the Australian community, people are making good choices on their social media and their other feeds that are coming in. From a democratic standpoint, what does a media literate citizen look like?

Ika Trijsburg

I mean, think extending on what Tanya's just provided as a picture there. I think there's also the aspect of digital literacy in alignment with media literacy and sort of lifting the veil on the disinformation machine beyond content, being able to understand and analyze content and make sense of it. Really kind of removing the pixie dust on AI and algorithmic bias and addictive content. And those sorts of things, if we can explain those, I often say, if we can explain these things simply enough to print it on the side of a coffee cup, that's the level that we've achieved what we need to achieve because these things need to be broken down into a way that every person could understand because they are having a huge impact on our lives. And we need to provide the tools for people to sort through that information, make informed decisions about what they're consuming. And we need to provide the conditions to regulate and promote healthy conditions for that consumption to happen within, just like we do with other forms of consumption and pollution. I think we need to not see this as something that's an individual burden that people need to fully develop the capacities to respond to in isolation, but actually look at things like the social determinants of health. How do we apply that model to the issues of disinformation and information pollution? We don't expect people to just not smoke, for example. We see that the individual and the collective costs of that individualised decision making in that space, which is also prone to manipulation of those with economic interests, is not feasible as a fully individualised response. And so we have frameworks for that. We can bring those into our response around information integrity. We look at core infrastructure for healthy functioning society that includes infrastructure, know, the built conditions, so to speak, within which our information flows. The quality of the inputs and having healthy alternatives, the institutional response, the individual drivers and the risk factors that lead people into consuming in a way that's not beneficial for them and how we can address those and creating the conditions and capacities to enable healthy individual choices. Those are all part of the social determinants of health framework that we can draw on in our understanding of how we can effectively and comprehensively respond to information integrity and information pollution.

Sally Bulkeley

Ika this is a very thoughtful appreciation for how individuals don't need to carry the misinformation burden alone and education takes us so far but there are other scaffoldings that need to take place as well for the Australian community to feel safe particularly on the media environment. Tanya do you have anything further to add to that?

Tanya Notley

Look, think one thing that we've seen when it comes to tech regulation is actually the public have been hardly engaged at all, even though social media has such an immense impact on their lives. And so we've seen policy just rushed through bills put to parliament where there was no public discussion and people didn't understand what it would mean and they failed those bills. So I think one thing about that media literacy can really do is increase, you know, I love that expression that Ika used like removing the pixie dust, a media literacy approach is absolutely about media knowledge. Like we can't escape needing to know about the media environments we use to get information. That is critical but it can happen in many different ways and many different forms through news articles, through, you know, libraries, through our family, so many different ways and it is really important because until people feel confident about their knowledge they're not going to be confident about advocating for particular policy responses and we need that from public and I think that's really been missing. So I think that's one critical area that media literacy also contributes to because nobody would ever say that you know the only response we need is education. But there have been many moments in the past where people have proposed you know magic bullets like we just need the right policy and everyone should be on board with that. We just need the platforms to do X, Y and Z. We're never going to have the perfect conditioned and we need to have a multi-pronged approach and I think now, know, really heartened that that is widely accepted and you know, education is one piece of this and it's one way that people can take back some control and feel like they're able to make more informed decisions.

Sally Bulkeley

We've sort of built ourselves through this podcast to listeners, an idea of media literacy, education, infrastructure, conditions and whatnot. Tanya, starting with you, are you optimistic or pessimistic about democracy's ability to adapt to the new digital age and the challenges that go with it?

Tanya Notley

Well, later this year, our research team will be releasing a book and it's called Living with Misinformation. And when we submitted this book proposal a couple of years ago, the book was actually called Combating Misinformation. And that reflected, you know, the way we were seeing things that you could protect yourself, you could do things to put up a kind of, you know, magic shield that you could find some ways to kind of get away from it and that you could fight. And, you know, the name change really reflects years of deep analysis and our research data. Now living with misinformation when I heard it and we knew that was the right title right away was my gosh that sounds quite defeatist and pessimistic and I'm an optimist at heart so I was pretty worried about that but actually I think it's not pessimistic. I think, you know, like I said we've had a decade looking for magic bullets if everyone just does this or that we'll get out of this situation. I think it's a sign of maturity that we've now moved beyond that that we need to not be looking for simple solutions but to live within the complexity of what we have, to know what we can do but also know our limits because that can help protect us as well. One thing that we did see in our research was a lot of overconfidence and some groups are more likely to be overconfident than others and that's a dangerous place to be as well. So I think being humble and reflective and just accepting that this is always around us and it will be and that's not to feed us, there's things that we should do to improve this situation. We can, but we need to be aware of that and find techniques and methods and approaches to live with that reality that misinformation is always around us.

Sally Bulkeley

And Ika, I'd be interested in your views too with the released playbook of 2024. All is not lost is what I'm hearing.

Ika Trijsburg

No, absolutely. And I echo that sentiment, Tanya. When we were designing the Disinformation in the City Response Playbook, we made a deliberate decision to make it blue sky colouring because we felt having gone through this extraordinary process of working with 40 experts from different sectors around the world to co-create this playbook, that it had actually been a profoundly optimistic exercise and that we all were feeling hopeful. And we had three parts of the or three models, I guess, within the playbook that really guided that hope for us. The first being that we have the capacity to really extend our understanding of disinformation response really into the anticipatory phase, through the active phase and into the recovery and resilience building phase. And that actually by applying a more resilience focused lens, it really changed the way that we move also from that combating narrative to how do we work effectively with this new threat that's in our environment so that we can still thrive and so that we're working together in constructive ways. And the other two models are about really effective working between levels of government. And we're already seeing that. We're seeing the forging of new strategic information pathways of new kinds of partnerships in response to this collective threat. And that's been really, really wonderful thing for us to experience in these past couple of years. And then the third is about really understanding what are the strengths and capacities and legitimacies of different actors, different sectors within communities, beyond communities, and how can they contribute those? How do we effectively bring together all of those strengths that we already have, all of those frameworks and all of those understandings? You know, I gave an example from public health before. How do we bring those all together so that we have a network of trusted institutions and information and people and places that actually are working together and mutually reinforcing each other in a way that allows for democratic dissent. It enables us to disagree well. It enables all of these things because we actually have those foundations. So I feel profoundly optimistic about that. It's a huge challenge, but I think we absolutely have the tools to meet it.

Sally Bulkeley

Well, I think we're very lucky to have both you Ika and Tanya in the community helping us to make sense of all of this that's happening around us, particularly as emerging national security issue. I think it continues to evolve. It continues to be quite large in scale and certainly the sense making that's taking place at the moment across both documents is just wonderful. We're almost out of time and I'd like to ask one more, this is the fun question if that's okay. So it's 2030 and we're all in our information environment that is somewhat changed. What does a healthy democratic information space look like? Tanya, would you like to get us started on that one?

Tanya Notley

For me it would be people having more control over information environments and you know the reason that I'm optimistic if that happens that will be a good thing is because our national surveys show us again and again people don't like being duped, they don't accept misinformation, they're not happy with it and they're upset by it, they're concerned by it. So I feel that if people are given more control to take out, to suck out all that information they didn't ask for in their personal environments, that'll take a lot of stress off people and it will make it much easier for them to seek out information. And ultimately for me it would look like people feeling more confident than they do about being able to participate in society using media in a reflective way and being able to make informed decisions with media. Our research shows that confidence is low and that some groups are less confident than others. So I think if we get this right, we'll be really addressing some of the systemic inequities that prevent people from fully and actively participating in political, social and cultural life.

Sally Bulkeley

Ika, I'd be keen for your thoughts as well. think there's what only 29 liberal democracies left in this world. We get to 2030. What's your vision?

Ika Trijsburg

I agree. think control, understanding, really having an understanding of what the, what the information environment is and a conception of that as an environment that we engage in, as collective infrastructure that we are constantly accessing and contributing to and that people feel confident to participate in that, that our institutions recognise the value of strengthening and protecting that and that we're working in collaboration across sectors and across nations to strengthen and reinforce democracy in that way.

Sally Bulkeley

Tanya, Ika, it's been an absolute pleasure having you here on today's podcast. Thanks so much for joining me.

Ika Trijsburg

Thank you.

Tanya Notley

Thanks, Sally.

National Security Podcast

Thank you for listening to the National Security Podcast. We welcome listener feedback and suggestions at any time, so please get in contact at natsecpodatanu.edu.au. For more important conversations about Australia's national security, please subscribe to the podcast, our YouTube channel and follow us on LinkedIn and Twitter to receive the latest updates.