A tragic story gets the tabloid treatment, and the ABC picks the wrong fight with Chris Reason.
In this edition of Media McKnight:
- Seven’s gratuitous coverage of the Lily Hooper tragedy
- The ABC’s Raf Epstein takes on Chris Reason over the Swans scandal… and loses
- Col Joye snubbed by the Logies’ In Memoriam
- Big Brother’s move to Brisbane confirmed
- Golden Bachelor delayed
- Sarah Ferguson’s undisclosed role in husband Tony Jones’ documentary
You can watch the video edition of MEDIA McKNIGHT in the YouTube player below:
– Advertisement –
SEVEN CROSSES THE LINE
Let’s begin with the tragic tale of bushwalker Lily Hooper, who was found dead eight days after going missing.
Due to a miscommunication, it was reported she had been found alive and well, but those reports were soon updated with the tragic news of her death.
Immediately after the incorrect news had reached her family that Lily had been found safe, cameras captured her family celebrating the news.
While most TV news bulletins used the footage sparingly while acknowledging the terrible mistake, 7NEWS decided to feature those scenes for a chunk of their story.
In fact, while the story ran for just over 2-and-a-half minutes, the first 53 seconds featured the celebrations.
Nine and 10 showed restraint, barely showing the scenes at all.
– Advertisement –
Seven’s use of the footage was gratuitous and exploitative. Just because you had the vision didn’t mean you had to run it.
You can see examples of how each network covered the story in the video above.
There is no doubt that the family being told Lily was still alive is newsworthy.
But the fact Seven spent 53 seconds exploiting that family by showing scenes of their celebrations when the truth was Lily was dead is, I think, just unforgivable.
And they wonder why people are losing faith in the mainstream media.
When approached for comment, a spokesperson for Seven told Media McKnight:
“Our report accurately reflected how the communications bungle unfolded. The Hooper family was wrongly told Lily was alive and then, more than 20 minutes later, informed she had not survived. What was broadcast represented only a fraction of what unfolded, but it captured an important part of the family’s story.”
The spokesperson added that the family has thanked Seven for its coverage, with Lily’s father Jim choosing to speak exclusively with the network despite approaches from other outlets.
– Advertisement –
But accuracy wasn’t the issue here. The issue was the amount of footage used showing a happy family celebrating the safe return of their daughter because of a miscommunication.
And look — the network did score the exclusive with Lily’s dad, so maybe he didn’t have an issue with the footage that was used, or maybe he hadn’t seen it. I don’t know either way, but for me it was gratuitous and unnecessary.
7NEWS AND THE SWANS: RAF EPSTEIN GETS IT WRONG
Okay, I might have just slapped down Channel 7, but now I’m about to defend them.
Senior reporter Chris Reason came under fire over his coverage of the Swans sexual assault allegations during an interview on ABC Radio Melbourne on Friday. It was an extraordinary conversation in which host Raf Epstein made allegations about Reason’s reporting that just weren’t true, all while defending the ABC’s own reporting.
It was biased and sloppy.
For the record, I’ve worked with Reason over the years – I like him, I admire him.
The part of Reason’s report Epstein took issue with involved a call to the exotic dancing agency at the centre of the allegations. The dancer at the centre of the claims took the opportunity to say she is now fearful for their safety after being identified online.
As far as I’m concerned, that was good, solid reporting.
Reason’s interview with the dancer came as Victoria Police warned media companies not to contact the women making the allegations against the Swans. The Guardian reports a manager from the police unit admonished the media for its behaviour amid feverish national interest in the story, with a statement reading in part:
“We are aware media have repeatedly contacted the parties involved in this matter and this is having a significant impact, particularly on the complainants.”
What a load of tosh. That’s more about Victoria Police wanting to control the narrative than anything to do with the investigation. It’s not like police haven’t ever leaked information about a case themselves.
This is a very sensitive story, and journalists know what they are – and aren’t – allowed to do.
That statement is nothing more than manipulation by Victoria Police.
And let’s remember, these women have issued statements, and their lawyers have been very visible. The woman Chris Reason spoke to wanted to share her story. Police have no right to stop any alleged victim from telling hers.
But Raf Epstein saw it as an opportunity to admonish Reason anyway, accusing him of “adding to the pile-on” simply for doing the basics of reporting – offering someone in the news the chance to speak. The person could have said ‘no comment ’, but she chose to talk. I really don’t see the problem here.
Then came the moment that summed the whole interview up. Epstein accused Reason of reporting on rumours and even using the word “rumour” in his report. Reason said he hadn’t and explained that he had used the term “unconfirmed reports”. Epstein pushed back, insisted he’d used the word rumour, and went to the tape to prove it.
The tape didn’t prove it. Reason’s report used the words “unconfirmed reports” — not rumour. Caught out, Epstein’s response was to shrug: “I don’t know if that matters.”
Sorry, what now? Epstein made an assertion that Reason had used the word ‘rumour ’, and when he was proven wrong, played it down.
Despite getting facts wrong, Epstein pushed on, calling out Reason for airing allegations about what allegedly happened in that hotel room.
When Reason pointed out the ABC had done the same thing, Epstein fired back, saying the ABC deals in verified facts.
But nothing has been verified officially, and there’s been no official police statement.
Isn’t that a rumour according to Raf Epstein’s take?
Why is it suddenly true when the ABC reports something?
This is the same ABC that had to launch a review after an editing error added five additional gunshots to vision it claimed showed former SAS commando Heston Russell firing from a helicopter. This is the same ABC that has pulled multiple episodes of Four Corners from every platform over accuracy concerns raised by a sacked reporter.
The idea that the ABC can be trusted implicitly while the commercial networks can’t is arrogant, and it’s insulting.
Raf Epstein needs to apologise to Chris Reason. He made a claim, it was proven wrong, and now he needs to man up and own it.
COL JOYE SNUBBED BY THE LOGIES
He was a fixture on our screens from the earliest days of Australian television, appearing on shows like Bandstand with Brian Henderson and a string of other TV classics across the decades.
But none of that history was enough to secure entertainer Col Joye a mention in this year’s In Memoriam segment at the Logies.
His omission has upset family and friends, none more so than fellow entertainer Jade Hurley, who shared his outrage on a recent edition of McKnight Tonight:
“Two days after the last Logie Awards, Col died. So wouldn’t you reckon someone would’ve just got a pencil and put into the computer: next year, Col Joye for a star? He was the first one that passed away after the last Logies.”
Putting these segments together isn’t easy, but this is just poor form.
I don’t know what’s going on at TV Week.
Remember, before the awards they produced a list of 140 TV shows for the public to vote on and shortlist into the top 70 of all time – and somehow forgot Hey Hey It’s Saturday too. Is it cutbacks? A lack of staff? Or staff who simply don’t know their TV history?
Col Joye had been on our screens for decades. Everyone knew him. And he was forgotten.
TV Week has been approached for comment for an explanation.
McKNIGHT WAS RIGHT!
Channel 10 has confirmed reality TV show Big Brother is moving to Brisbane. In a statement released Tuesday, the network said:
“Construction is officially underway at Screen Queensland Studios in Hemmant. The studios have been home to Aussie classics like Boy Swallows Universe, but they’ve never seen drama this unfiltered, this unscripted, and this unmissable. Expect a return to live evictions, live nominations, and live streaming, plus an even longer run to get totally hooked.”
Of course, viewers of Media McKnight knew this was happening months ago.
I reported it back at the beginning of June, including that the show was moving on because of a conflicting booking at the convention centre. The network has now confirmed a longer run, though it hasn’t disclosed exactly how long. But as I reported, the show is moving to Brisbane.
#McKnightWasRight.
THE TELE WAS RIGHT!
Meanwhile, The Daily Telegraph is reporting Channel 9 won’t be airing The Golden Bachelor this year as planned. The paper reports the dating series, hosted by Samantha Armytage, is now expected to hit screens next March rather than later this year.
I’ve been able to confirm that reporting with my own sources.
The paper speculates on why the show is moving, including linking the move to Armytage taking over as host of Today. That may well be part of it, but there’s no doubt there’s a lot of support for this show internally, especially from programming boss Michael Healy. He is keen to give it every chance of success — and airing it off the back of Married At First Sight might just do that.
Is it an issue airing two dating shows back-to-back?
Not really.
MAFS isn’t really a dating show, is it.
SARAH FERGUSON’S UNDISCLOSED ROLE
Much is being made of the role 7.30 host Sarah Ferguson played in a new documentary made by her husband, Tony Jones.
Sentient examines the ethics of scientific testing on animals, with the scientific community reflecting on how attitudes have shifted over the years. Ferguson is credited as executive producer on the film, but The Australian reports she didn’t disclose her role to the ABC for two years.
During a recent discussion with Jones on McKnight Tonight — before that disclosure issue became public — I asked him about his wife’s involvement. It was something he seemed keen to downplay at the time, which surprised me:
“She didn’t have a lot of input in the actual filming or editing of the film. She’s there as an executive producer because she was there at the point where we came up with the idea of doing this, and the film probably wouldn’t exist without Sarah. But she doesn’t actually have any role in the editing or the filming of it — she was doing her own job for the ABC at that time.”
To be honest, I don’t have a problem with her serving as executive producer. But it’s the disclosure — or lack of it — that’s the real problem, and it will give the tabloids plenty of fodder to go after both her and the ABC.
Media McKnight is published on YouTube every Tuesday at 8pm AEST at YouTube.com/@McKnightTonight.
The article goes live on the TV Blackbox website every Wednesday morning.
Send your tips to: [email protected]
– Advertisement –
