Also in this edition of Media McKnight:
• PR spin and alleged misinformation surrounding Big Brother Australia
• Behind-the-scenes media battles following the Bondi Beach shootings
• Embarrassing on-air blunders at Seven and Nine
• Why Australian media still struggles with crediting original reporting
• And the stories that don’t deserve the airtime
A VIDEO VERSION OF THIS PODCAST IN THE PLAYER BELOW CONTAINS CLIPS FROM THE STORIES IN THIS ARTICLE
DID RICKY GERVAIS STEAL A JOKE?
I’m a big fan of Ricky Gervais. So big, in fact, that I listen to his podcast and XFM recordings with Stephen Merchant and Karl Pilkington every night while going to sleep.
– Advertisement –
I’m certainly not a hater.
But when watching Ricky’s new Netflix comedy special ‘Mortality’ I noticed that he used a joke originally delivered by Pilkington.
And he did it without any acknowledgment.
For fans of Gervais, each special usually contains material from the podcasts and radio show, but usually they are his own observations, not someone else’s joke.
It’s not uncommon for comedians to employ writers for their specials, so I checked the credits ‘Mortality’ to see if Pilkington was credited.
He was not.
– Advertisement –
The only writing credit belongs to Gervais.
The joke in question is in relation to the idea of transplanting a head on a different body.
Here is a transcript from ‘Mortality’, but you can also see the performance in the video player above:
They can transplant every organ now. Whatever’s got… Transplant every organ. Not your brain. That wouldn’t make sense. You are your brain. So that would be an everything-else transplant. Wouldn’t it?
But I’d sign up for that. I don’t care about this. It’s to get this around. If I could leave a million pounds to science, so when I die… Supposing I died, my body’s crushed, killed instantly, but my head’s intact. They keep that on ice. Wait for a body donor. Some poor bloke gets his head crushed. Put my head on his body, and I’m back, aren’t I?
Statistically, I will get a bigger penis as well, so… The odds are in my favour there, trust me. I wake up in the future, I see the scar, and I go, “Ooh, that’s all right.” I go, “You’ve always wanted a big knob.” “Yeah, I’ve always wanted a big knob.” I go, “Let’s have a little bit of me time, shall we?” I start, but every time I look down, I go, “That’s not my knob.” You know what I mean? I go, “Oh, that’s not my knob.”
“Oh, that’s not my knob.” It’s not my hand either. Carry on.
– Advertisement –
Pay close attention to that last line.
“Oh, that’s not my knob.” It’s not my hand either. Carry on.
That punch line is lifted from a conversation Gervais had with Pilkington back in 2006 on The Ricky Gervais Show podcast.
RICKY: So if you have a body transplant, right and you’re there, you’re at home naked, you look down – lovely penis and a set of testicles.
KARL: Yeah.
RICKY: right. What do you do with them?
KARL: What do you mean? What am I doing with them?
RICKY: Well, do you like them?
KARL: Well, you wouldn’t. You wouldn’t mess about with them as much as if they were your own.
RICKY: But if you did mess about them, would you feel guilty that you were messing about with another man’s testicles and penis?
KARL: And it’s the full body?
RICKY: Yeah.
KARL: No, because they’re not my hands either.
RICKY: You’re a genius. You’re a f*cking genius.
There’s no doubt in my mind the joke belongs to Karl Pilkington, despite Gervais being part of the conversation that led to that punchline.
The question is whether Pilkington approved the use of the joke, or was it simply used without attribution?
While there’s not much that can be done in a legal sense when it comes to stealing jokes, a comedian often faces backlash within the community if caught doing so.
It really is frowned upon.
The irony here is that Gervais called out James Corden back in 2022 over a blatant joke theft. Corden read out a joke prepared by a writer on his tonight show, which Gervais had originally delivered in his 2018 comedy special.
Gervais tweeted about the joke theft before quickly deleting it, but that didn’t stop him from ‘liking’ a string of tweets calling Corden out.
Let’s hope Ricky had Karl’s permission to use the joke, otherwise it can only be labelled as theft.
But even if he had permission Pilkington should have been credited.
CALLING OUT PR LIES
It’s only January and I’m already on a rant, all thanks to the PR team at Endemol Shine.
In December I wrote an exclusive story on claims the producers of Big Brother had manipulated the outcome of the show. It has been alleged production staff colluded with housemates while microphones and cameras were switched off in the diary room.
The information for this story came from trusted sources from within the production unit.
Endemol Shine has – in my opinion – lied about what happened inside the house and defamed my reporting.
So, let me take you through it.
On Monday 15 December I sent an email to Endemol Shine asking for a statement about the claims, telling them the story would be published Tuesday.
After receiving no response I delayed publishing the story and rang Endemol Shine at 1.28pm on Tuesday 16 December. I confirmed the email had been received and passed on to the PR team.
No response was forthcoming.
The story was published at 6am on Wednesday 17 December on the TV Blackbox website.
Here are the claims as per my reporting:
A car giveaway during this year’s finale of Big Brother Australia was intended to add a bit of drama to draw out the final result. What it ended up doing was exposing the manipulation behind the scenes that went much further than a bad edit.
Production insiders have revealed to TV Blackbox that producers from Endemol Shine spoke specifically to Allana Jackson and Bruce Dunne before the finale, telling them to say ‘yes’ to any challenge that came up during the live broadcast.
Apparently, producers were keen to make sure there was more than one contestant vying for the car.
Allana and Bruce were both unaware each had been told to take part.
One person who was told NOT to take part was Coco Beeby. Producers knew she was winning the overall vote and made sure the viewers’ favourite would not be eliminated before the votes were announced (the winner of the car had to leave the house, making themselves ineligible to win).
If the competition had not been manipulated, as claimed, then it is possible Emily Dale could have won the $135,000 prize pool if Coco had decided to take part in the car challenge and won.
The Daily Mail and news.com.au both followed up the story, forcing Endemol Shine to take the enquiries seriously and put out a statement.
That statement was then sent to me on Wednesday at 10.48am – almost five hours after the story was published and days after they were asked for a statement.
“The claims made regarding the production of Big Brother Australia are false. Interactions in the diary room are limited to standard production, safety, and housemate welfare. The integrity of Big Brother and its results were never compromised.”
It was emphatic and damning.
So, I wrote back:
“Have the claims actually been investigated?
The information comes from well placed – and trusted – sources.
Also, why has this statement only been provided after publication when I originally told you I would be publishing Tuesday morning, but I delayed – and called – to try and get a statement”.
I have still not received a response to these questions.
After checking again with my sources, my only conclusion is the PR team at Endemol Shine have lied. And if that is the case, their lies have essentially defamed my reputation as a credible source of information.
My record on scoops is pretty high, but if I get something wrong I always take full responsibility.
Not this time though – I believe my reporting to be fair and accurate.
And I faced a backlash over that statement from ESA. I was attacked on Media Spy as being unreliable with the truth. Two stories on two of Australia’s biggest online publishers have accused my reporting of being incorrect, based on the statement by Endemol Shine.
Again, a statement I believe to be a lie.
So, should PR people be held accountable for their lies?
Should they be able to hide behind the title of ‘spokesperson’ when spreading false information?
Previously, I held the ABC publicity department to account for the way they behaved when I had an exclusive story and they spoiled it after I went to them for a statement. I received major backlash for daring to hold PR people to account, but it doesn’t seem fair to me that they can destroy reputations without consequences.
So, now I face the dilemma of whether to name the individual who – knowingly or unknowingly – defamed my reputation by claiming my story was wrong.
There’s also a question of whether the reporters of the stories on news.com.au and The Daily Mail should have approached me to find out whether I trusted my sources, but they didn’t.
Relationships with PR types is an important part of any beat. Reputations are important when knowing who can – and can’t – be trusted.
That very same week I heard a weird rumour about a high-profile presenter, so I contacted someone very high in the organisation to find out if it was true. A one-word answer came confirming the story was false. Because of the trust I have in that person, I dropped the story. PR people need to realise they only get away with lying once.
I have no trust in the PR team at Endemol Shine and I warn every journalist to take anything they say with a grain of salt.
As for the story itself, it does raise questions about how much Big Brother was manipulated. While we know reality TV has very little reality, a show like Big Brother is supposed to be as real as it gets, but now the outcome itself is in question.
A comment by user IDC9 on the story summed it up best:
These allegations are very serious. If Endemol Shine is found to have done what is being alleged, Ten should tear up any and all contracts they have with them, and find new production partners to work with. While this would undoubtedly throw Ten’s plans and schedules for 2026, and potentially 2027 into complete chaos, that is a small price to pay for ensuring that competition formats retain some degree of integrity, and are not manipulated so brazenly by those who work on them. Some manipulation is, sadly, to be expected with these formats. But this is a bridge too far!
I couldn’t agree more.
THE MEDIA AND THE BONDI SHOOTINGS
Newsrooms around the world were kept busy over Christmas after the tragic events at Bondi Beach.
While the political fallout is still playing out, another battle has played out in the media by those trying to secure the first interview hero Ahmed al-Ahmed.
You’ve no doubt seen the video of him wrestling the shotgun out of the hands of Sajid Akram.
It went viral around the world.
Humans respond to visual stimulus, which is why seeing a video is more powerful than the written word. To see these brave actions has a more visceral reaction than any news report could.
So, of course, the next stage was to try and secure an interview with the man now dubbed a hero.
Media around the world were keen to secure the first interview with Bondi hero Ahmed al-Ahmed
These interviews usually become a bidding war by TV Networks, who will reap the full benefit of having video of the interview. In the old days Nine and Seven would be opening the chequebook to secure the exclusive.
We’d only find out how much was paid after the losing party leaked to newspapers how much their final offer was.
Things are much different now.
Declining ad revenue means TV networks (at least here in Australia) no longer have the deep pockets required to get interviews of this nature.
But Sky News Australia gave it a go.
In a fascinating piece written by Head of Programs Mark Calvert, we are given a blow-by-blow description on how far Sky went to try and secure the interview.
Sky had good reason to believe they would get the world exclusive as Ahmed’s team (there always ends up being a team when these events happen) approached journalist Sharri Markson.
As per Calvert’s article:
Events were moving quickly now. We started to put things in place. Ahmed’s team were upfront that there would also be an interview with a US network. But Sharri would get the only Australian TV interview. And the timing would mean they would both air at around the same time.
Ultimately the interview did not take place, despite a direct promise by Ahmed:
“It will happen at four o’clock,” he told me, Calvert continues.
I told him that would be great, as I knew how much our viewers wanted to hear from him. I told him to focus on his health, on getting that treatment, then we would see him later for our interview.
He looked me in the eye, and in front of his lawyer, cousins and the incredibly patient Crown staffer assigned to make his stay, and our filming, as smooth as possible,
Ahmed gave me a solemn promise, uttering those seven words:
“I am a man of my word.”
Hours ticked by. Calls and messages went unanswered.
Former Australian TV Presenter, and journalist, Anna Coren (now at CBS in America) ended up securing the world exclusive.
You can see a clip of the interview in the video player above, but tbh it’s not a great interview. I place no blame at Coren for that, but when talent has broken English and don’t get emotional, you have very little to work with.
That’s presumably why it wasn’t turned into a feature story for CBS 60 Minutes. Instead, clips from the interview were used in the nightly news, breakfast shows and local bulletins. It wasn’t given the treatment of a feature worldwide exclusive interview.
Meanwhile, Sky News has come under fire for trying to turn the hero into a villain because they didn’t get the interview.
I don’t believe that was their intention. Sure, there is a level of frustration in the article in how everything played out, but it’s also unique insight into how negotiations happen behind the scenes.
Ahmed has every right to agree to an interview with whoever he wants, even if that means breaking a promise (presumably for a big payday).
During his negotiations with Anna Coren and CBS, you would have to imagine part of their conditions would be worldwide exclusivity.
The Sky News article does not mention anything about payment, so it could be assumed they were hoping to get the interview on good will (remember what I said about Australian media no longer having the money to pay for these types of interviews any more).
According to the SMH, The Ten Network, a subsidiary of US broadcaster CBS, said the interview with Al Ahmed did not involve payment.
I call BS on that.
US News organisations never pay for interviews directly, but they do pay to licence things like photographs so they can claim editorial independence.
The talent will be put up in fancy hotels, offered flights overseas and pictures used could be licences for hundreds of thousands of dollars per pic.
So, while it’s true the network didn’t pay for the interview, it is disingenuous to suggest no money exchanged hands.
And I have no problem with that. Why shouldn’t Ahmed make as much money as possible to tell his story? CBS will make money from the advertising around the interview and the exclusive promotes the CBS News brand, showing it can get top interviews.
They make money from it, so why shouldn’t the talent.
CONFUSION AT SEVEN
Spare a thought for the team in the graphics department at 7NEWS in Sydney who didn’t know the difference between Australia’s Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and America’s Public Broadcasting Service.
7NEWS Sydney used the incorrect logo to illustrate Australia’s PBS, instead using an American media company (image – 7)
While both share the same abbreviation – PBS – they are two very different services.
As Chris Reason read out the intro to a story involving Australia’s PBS, the graphic next to him clearly showed the American PBS logo.
Oops.
The two different PBS logos – the one on the left is the Australian Pharmaceutical Benefits log (the correct logo)
What’s striking is the same story aired around the country but no other state aired Sydney’s cock-up.
It did make me wonder why there’s so much duplication though – why does the same story need so many different graphic treatments (especially in the age of cost savings)?
There’s no reason the same graphic couldn’t be used in other states (as long as what Sydney supplied is double-checked of course).
CONFUSION AT NINE
Meanwhile, cost savings at Nine led to an embarrassing blunder where an AI generated video of Brisbane included multiple images of the Story Bridge.
For those unfamiliar, there’s only one Story Bridge in Brisbane, but the promo would have had you believe there were many more.
The Courier Mail reports the promo was made in Sydney after local promo producer Leon Cull was made redundant earlier this year.
According to the outlet “the error was only identified after the promo had already aired on Queensland broadcasts, and was subsequently withdrawn”.
this is the video 9NEWS allegedly used in a promo for Brisbane. It is an AI generated image with not one, but two STORY BRIDGE’s
That has been disputed by Nine – they say the promo never went to air.
“Any incorrect imagery is picked up during usual production checks and processes,” a spokesperson told TV Tonight.
Before the publication of the Courier Mail story I had also been alerted to the error but could not find the promo in any of my recordings of various shows on Nine during the period the mistake happened.
While I can’t say for sure that the promo did not air, I have not been able to prove otherwise.
CREDIT WHERE CREDIT IS DUE
Co-owner of TV Blackbox Kevin Perry had a good exclusive over Christmas. During an interview with former Melbourne radio king Neil Mitchell, he revealed his Neil Mitchell Asks Why podcast had been cancelled by Nine.
Considering how popular Mitchell is in Victoria, it was no surprise to see the Herald Sun jump on the story.
But did they credit the original article?
Of course they didn’t. Journalist Fiona Byrne obviously presumed that because she followed up on the story and asked Mitchell directly there was no need to give credit.
Considering how much journos at News Corp complain when other media don’t credit their reporting, the hypocrisy is astounding.
It seems to be an ongoing issue in this country that journalists can’t acknowledge the work done by their colleagues. In America reporters credit each other all the time, even acknowledging their own sources have confirmed the reporting of a rival outlet.
It’s about time Australia grew up and did the same.
SH*T I DON’T CARE ABOUT.
This week I started caring about this story, but things took a turn and now I just don’t give a sh*t.
A story in the Daily Telegraph last week dished the dirt on a TV reporter was apparently left in tears “after a heated run-in with police at a dramatic incident?”.
The latest edition of Sh*t I Don’t care about is worth watching in the video player above
Reporter Zara Powell had the yarn which certainly caught my attention.
“According to those on the ground, the reporter allegedly edged too close while trying to get vision, despite being repeatedly instructed to step back. Police claim the directions were ignored and tensions quickly escalated” her column continued.
The story appeared in her new weekly ‘Messy Monday’ column, which is described as dishing “up the juiciest whispers and scandals making waves across Sydney’s social scene”.
And Zara certainly had the backing of the Tele, with online videos posted on all the social media accounts (you can see the video in the player above).
There’s just one problem.
The story contained no names, no revelations about which TV network was involved.
It was nothing more than pub gossip, not journalism.
Zara seemed to have all the details, even revealing the network involved lodged a “strongly worded complaint with senior police”.
What is the point of a story like this without actual details of those involved?
If the incident happened as alleged, then it is not defamatory, so why did the Tele not name names?
Was it to protect one of their own – a working journo?
The same consideration is rarely given to normal punters caught up in a story so why the special treatment just because the person works in the media?
If this is the best this column can do, then why bother.
I’ll be giving it a miss.
The video version of Media McKnight streams every Tuesday night at 9pm AEST at youtube.com/@mcknighttonight and is published the following day on the TV Blackbox website.
– Advertisement –
