1. Comedian Mick Molloy made a joke about smuggling fruit into South Australia ahead of a special event broadcast from Adelaide Oval, which was criticized by Upper House MP Frank Pangallo for potentially causing a fruit fly outbreak.
2. Primary Industries Minister Clare Scriven laughed off the comments and ruled out taking any action, but Molloy doubled down on his remarks and said he will not be making an apology.
3. Molloy also referenced previous controversies in South Australia, including being taken to the Supreme Court for defamation and the state's attempt to steal the New Year's Test slot from Sydney, leading him to worry about returning as a public enemy.
The article titled "AFL 2023: Mick Molloy’s fruit joke torched by South Australia before Front Bar’s Adelaide Gather Round special" published on news.com.au reports on a feud between comedian Mick Molloy and South Australian MP Frank Pangallo over a joke made by Molloy about the state's border protection laws. The article provides details of the incident, including quotes from both parties involved, as well as comments from other officials.
However, the article appears to have a biased tone towards Molloy, portraying him as a victim of an overreaction by Pangallo and the state of South Australia. The author seems to take Molloy's side in the dispute, with statements such as "the popular footy funny man" and "the weight of opinion in Adelaide is that they would not like to attend then the show won’t go." These statements suggest that Molloy is well-liked and supported by the public, while Pangallo is portrayed as an attention-seeker.
Furthermore, the article does not provide enough evidence or analysis to support its claims. For example, it states that "Pangallo took exception to the fun being poked at the state’s border protection policy," but does not explain why this was considered offensive or how it could lead to a fruit fly outbreak. Similarly, it mentions that Primary Industries Minister Clare Scriven laughed off Molloy's comments but does not provide any further context or explanation.
The article also fails to explore counterarguments or present both sides equally. While it includes quotes from Molloy defending his joke and refusing to apologize, there are no comments from Pangallo or other officials explaining their perspective or concerns about potential risks. This one-sided reporting makes it difficult for readers to form their own opinions on the matter.
Overall, while the article provides some information about the feud between Molloy and Pangallo over a fruit joke, its biased tone and lack of evidence make it difficult to fully understand the situation and form an informed opinion.