A NYT editorial has slammed Goldman Sachs for its role in the financial crisis, Ten must work out what to do with Australian Idol in 2010, how the media downturn will affect higher education, newsreaders get emo, and more.
Dear Neil Mitchell: questions on conflict of interest
|
Strange bedfellows were created when Fairfax Media took over Southern Cross Broadcasting. Suddenly, Melbourne morning radio star Neil Mitchell had gone from being a 3AW host and News Limited’s Herald Sun columnist to 3AW host, Fairfax employee and News Limited’s Herald Sun columnist. A strangely conflicted working arrangement? Not so, Mr Mitchell told Crikey’s Margaret Simons. Then along came journalism student Cathy Green. How could you write for the Herald Sun and brodcast on 3AW, she asked? Cross promotion, said the Fairfax employee. Go figure. From: Cathy Green Hi Neil I am a First year journalism student and was wondering why you interviewed Steve Vizard on your radio program this morning given that you had already interviewed him for your article in today’s Herald-Sun. Was the first interview for the paper incomplete? The article in the newspaper ended with a promotion for your upcoming interview with Steve Vizard at 8.30 on 3AW. The whole thing does appear to be a bit choreographed. Anyway, congratulations on getting a front page story. I’m envious. regards Subject: RE: Steve Vizard interview. Cathy, Neil Mitchell From: Cathy Green Hi Neil The other question I had was; why can Steve Vizard still manage to get away with avoiding answering the same questions he managed to dodge both in and outside of court at the time of his trial? He did publicly promise at the time of his trial that he was determined for the whole story to be told and yet that story remains untold. Apart from Steve Vizard handing back his Order of Australia, the only new information in the latest stories appears to be that Steve Vizard has shed some tears over what, he has always maintained, was little more than an administrative oversight. I hope I’m not asking too many questions here. Legal journalism is the area I’m hoping to get into and I guess probing is part of that process. I particularly admire the work of John Silvester. Also Andrew Rule, who used to write for The Age was often, I thought, incredibly fearless. Anyway. Thanks for your time Neil. Yours Sincerely, From: Neil Mitchell Cathy, All I can do is ask the question. If Vizard chooses not to answer them that is his right. I do not agree the only information that came out was the tears. The Herald Sun story was a news story, which means it will not carry a great deal of analysis or quotes. The radio interview ran for about 20 minutes. That allows for many many more questions than you will ever get in a newspaper story. Neil Mitchell From: Cathy Green Hi Neil Thanks for your time. I mentioned our discussion about the Steve Vizard story to my parents on Mother’s Day and told them how frustrating I found it that no-one even batted an eyelid when Steve Vizard simply chose not to answer questions. My parents asked me a couple of interesting questions which I’ll relay to you since they’re obviously not questions I’m able to answer. My father, who’s an an entertainment lawyer, says that you would be getting paid about $50,00 a year for your column at the Herald Sun and that Fairfax would be paying you something in the vicinity of $1,000,000 a year for your 3AW program. Obviously I can’t vouch for the specific figures and nor would I suggest for a moment that you have any obligation to publicly declare your income, but Dad deals with these types of contracts all the time so I’m trusting his estimates. He was only stressing the difference between the two incomes rather than the exact amounts. Anyway the crux of the question he asks is: How could you deliver a front page exclusive to the main rival to Fairfax when Fairfax are paying you so much more then News Limited are? This isn’t a question about how much you earn but rather about where your primary loyalty should lie when you are employed by two rival media organisations. Also, at my mother’s insistence, and bearing in mind that she’s been listening to the radio for many more years than I have, I’ll ask you her question. Why do 3AW never let women host any of their major programs? Breakfast, Morning, Afternoon, Drive, Sport, Evening and Overnight are all hosted by men. Even when the regular hosts go on holidays or call in sick, the fill-in hosts are always, without exception, men. Mum finds it offensive and says that it’s misogynistic and certainly, on the evidence she presents, it’s difficult to deny that she has a point. When was the last time your morning slot was hosted by a woman either full-time or fill-in? When was the last time you allowed a woman to fill in for you? Mum says that there was an article in the Green Guide last year where 3AW management claimed that there were no women in prime slots because listeners turned off if female hosts argued with them. That’s insane. We’re in the 21st century. I know that I’m being very direct with my questions here, perhaps a reflection of the Arts Law degree I finished a couple of years ago, but when I listened to Virginia Trioli’s Walkley award-winning interview with Peter Reith at Uni a few weeks ago, I couldn’t help but be struck by how brilliantly she, without getting aggressive, was able to insist on answers to her questions. She got those answers. There’s no way she would have won her Walkley award if she’d simply moved on to a new question every time Peter Reith chose not to fully answer her questions. I look forward to your reply. My mother says that I’ll be ignored because my directness will be dismissed as something pre-menstrual. best wishes, |
|
|
35 Comments
I see that there is no response yet from my question to Jane at Crikey. Again, why do you consider this newsworthy enough to publish?
Good on you Cathy, I thought it both relevant and cheeky - keep going!
I’ve tried to explain myself further and defend myself in the comments, corrections and cock-ups section of this website.
In addition though, we might ask ourselves how poor old Steve Vizard has ended up trapped and tormented in an existentialist nightmare where we fail to understand what he refuses to explain. What can we as a community do to help?
And while we’re pondering the big questions, MediaMook was probably right in accusing me of being a bit harsh in trying to hold Mitchell responsible for 3AW’s alleged sexism. I probably could have made the same point by making the more general observation that they can put a man on the moon but they still can’t put a woman on 3AW.
Cathy, you are entitled to your view that Neil was lenient on Steve Vizard. However, that is only your view and your view has no particular claim to merit.
Your original piece was expressed in a highly unusual manner, complete with massively irrelevant asides. No one cares whether you are menstrual, pre-mestrual or post-menstrual. No-one cares about your parents and non-cares about your “Arts Law degree”.
This is not entirely your fault, as Crikey has to shoulder much of blame in publishing this.
Not being involved in the media at all, I am not quite sure why Neil Mitchell’s working arrangements are of such interests to journos in the Crikey stable, or budding journos like Cathy Green. I would have thought it is up to his primary employer whether it allows its star to moonlight for other media outlets (in Mitchell’s case, writing the column for the Hun) and, likewise, whether News Limited is happy to boost the profile of a personality from a rival media company. After all, it is that profile which Fairfax is largely paying for. The same would go for the Vizard cross promo activities.
Perhaps the two media outlets regarded the arrangements as being to their mutual benefit? Is this simply a case of Cathy (and Crikey) not being happy with obvious explanations?
Aint that the truth. ASIC Boss appears on every TV and radio show on Vizard matter - more TV appearances than Max Markson on speed - but unsighted on matters where ASIC has significant business to do …..Opus Prime, Margin Lending. wespoint, etc etc..Theres a topic for Cathy to inverstigate…no celeb, no pics, no story. Since when did Govt Depts run massive media departments and the media laps it up no questions asked??? To wit defence Dept and Tany Zaetta.
and Derryn Hinch always refers to Christine Nixon as Mrs Doubtfire. By the way you can do a graduate diploma in journalism part-time over a couple of years. Cathy could possibly be doing that.
I’m curious as to whether Neil gave permission for private correspondence to be published.
Taxpayer funder of journalism students writes:
I’d say “Cathys” career in journalism is looking a tiny bit jaundiced on several fronts. I listened to Mitchells interview. Thought Mitchell was good. Vizard answered all the questions for twenty minutes and explained that, contrary to what had been reported everywhere at the time, he was investigated by ASIC, by the DPP, by the police and they all found that there was no case against him. If Cathy knows something that ASIC, the DPP , the police and their QCs don’t know , I suggest she shouldn’t be writing to Neil Mitchell but breaking her exclusive evidence on the front page of every paper around the country. Heres another story for Cathy to look at – Government agency overzealously raids celebrity house, beats up the investigation for two years, then when it cant get a semblance of a criminal case together, engages in a media blitz to convince Jo Public that its civil settlement (alleging no dishonesty) is a big scalp. Just a thought. Perhaps next years assignment.
Anyone else see an interesting coincidence in the inordinate number of replies to this insignificant, old Crikey story and the fact that Neil Mitchell is on holiday for two weeks?
Methinks you hit a nerve, Cathy.
‘great timing for a bloke that works 3 hours a day 5 days a week, has more holidays than the teachers and construction workers combined and was just taking off on 2 weeks holidays himself. ’ Yeay, yeay, the man and the station are up to their necks in beat-ups and hypocrisy. It’s taken Crikey a long time to shine the spotlight on AW, you had Parrotwatch for Sydneysiders years ago, it’s now time for a regular AW-watch where we can share our observations on the tabloid terrors of the bandwidth. All non-defamatory of course, mainly snippets of conversation & critiques. I’m serious, please consider.
But Jane’s persona is a bit fishy too. How can you be a first year journalism student AND an Arts Law graduate? The answer is, you can’t. You’d at least be a post-grad journalism student and she hasn’t disclosed that. And how convenient to have a Dad who’s an entertainment lawyer, that comparision of salaries really helped to make her point. It’s tending to smack of a Fairfax inside job. Someone’s not happy about Mitchell’s moonlighting.
Anyhow, Jane said she admires Sylvester and Rule. Given her (Mum’s) point about 3AW being a female wasteland she may be interested to know that when Christine Nixon was in contention for her current position, Sly’s (aka Sylvester) breakfast segment on police gossip etc mentioned at least twice that she was not a proper candidate as she was really just a ‘Lollipop lady’. That is the honest truth. Some of us have long memories for stuff that stinks.
Crikey, please hire Nina W. immediately , she is very, very good. Not just smartypants satirical but funny as well.
I have a nagging doubt about Cathy Green’s modus operandi in talking to Mitchell. She properly identifies herself as a first-year journalism student but has she committed a sin of omission (which is a breach of the Media Code of Ethics)? Was Green merely a first-year student when asking the questions, who then happened to forward the exchange to Crikey!, or was she in fact a Crikey! operative from the start? If the latter, then at the very least Crikey! should come clean and admit its role in what was effectively a sting.
Of course, Mitchell is no longer a journalist but a powerful celebrity who uses (and mis-uses) elements of journalism to shift opinions towards his view of the world. His shameless admission of commercially cross promoting from what was supposed to be a news story proves the point that he no longer holds true to fundamental tenets of journalism.
Wherre did i get Jane from? Of course i meant Cathy. Sorry, ah the perils of late night blogging. But i stand by the rest.
Cathy sent the story in off her own bat. She is not related to editor Jonathan Green.
I never thought I would defend Neil Mitchell but this is terrible. Cathy Green could suggest to her lecturers that they use her actions as an example of unethical behaviour rather those of Neil Mitchell. I am at a loss as to how Crikey sees that this contributes effectively to any discussion /analysis of cross promotion.
And why did you consider it newsworthy enough to publish?
Cathy’s enthusiasm is to be commended. But trying to turn herself into a local hero by engaging an interviewee on a pretext of a uni assignment and disingenuously posting it for public debate is a misguided exercise in self - aggrandizement. Getting printed in a Crikey blog may make for back slapping in the Uni caf amongst the fellow First Years, but what journalism really needs is honest, analytical reporting and analysis. Cathy admires Silvester and Rule’s fearlessness. An additional quality they bring to their work is candour, a lack of preconceptions and a willingness to investigate difficult matters. Cathys superficial and trite attacks on Mitchell’s Vizard chat fails on all fronts. Getting printed in Crikey and fatuously running a populist line does not a journalist maketh. Cathy, hold off next time and if you must put pen to paper read it and ask yourself – is this the best I can do; or does it resemble a misguided version of a Spy column when Laurence Money is on holidays?
I wonder if it’s any coincidence that Neil’s regular thursday column in the Herald-Sun is missing today. Seems strange.
Doesn’t Neil read out emails sent to him on his show every day? That’s a form of publishing. Just a thought.
I think it’s drawing a long bow to suggest that Neil would be contributing to this thread under an alias and,also, to be fair to him, all of the regulars at 3AW are not on air at the moment. It must be a non-ratings week.
Go Cathy (you may never eat lunch in this town again though…..)!!! Margaret Simons summed it up well in her original article: “Headline acts own themselves. Foot soldiers are loved so much they want to own us.” with regards to Fairfax deciding who else their employees can freelance for. Neil Mitchell’s initial reply was most illuminating - it’s all about the cross promotion of Mitchell. Bit harsh to try to hold Mitchell personally accountable re: alleged 3AW sexism, though.
Couldn’t help but notice the similarity between Cathy’s surname and that of Crikey’s editor. Coincidence? I think we should be told.
Groundreaking and fearless public debate by Crikey - debating the intricacies of Neil Mitchells employment arrangements prompted by a pre menstrual uni assignment 5 weeks after the event. Finger on the pulse and certainly worth a subscription. While Crikeys at it, my Grandmother asked me a question about The Argus coverage of the Chamberlin visit to Germany. Nana says the Argus coverage was a little off the mark. Nanas doing her VCE media studies and needs help. Dad works for Fairfax so doesn’t know much about the media. Mum says theres only one place to go for fearless media debates like this. What do you guys think about Nanas views? Please don’t pull your punches.
The reason I brought up the Lance Franklin saga was to not only demonstrate a point to those who accused me of being unethical in comparison to Neil Mitchell but also to contrast the relentless aggression of Mitchell in pursuing Franklin and the Hawthorn FC with the leniency of the Vizard interview.
Of course it is not legitimate. More to the point it is ridiculously stupid. What is Crikey’s possible interest in this non-story? If Fairfax and News are happy with the arrangement, then so what. Who would actually mention their menstrual cycle and expect to be taken seriously as a journalist?
Andrew,
Are you suggesting that a commentator on this thread is Neil Mitchell? How odd.
Couldnt agree more.
One. Even assuming Cathys bona fides, why is any of this of public interest and worthy of Crikeys attention.
Two. Even if Mitchell cross promoted his interview, so what?
Three. Cathys folksy irrelevancies relating to her domestic situation don’t transform her simplistic questions into interrogations deserving of public interest. They are and remain school project questions.
Four. How did Cathys school project questions find their way to Crikey? If anyone exhibits bad faith it appears to be Cathy.
Five. Cathy comes with an agenda. For example, why is Vizard bound to explain why he was cleared of any criminal charges after investigation by the DPP and ASIC? Cathys coloured ;language posits a pre existing position of guilty until proven innocent. And proven innocent by the media at that,. Smacks of McCarthyism to me.
Six. On what basis does she assert that Mitchell went easy on Vizard. Good interview all round.
Seven. Would the real Cathy please stand up.
I found the item very good and thought Cathy’s questions were to the point. I assume no answer was received to her last two or three questions.
My view is that Steve Vizard is a rogue — perhaps “crook” would be a better term.
The thing that surprises me the most about Cathy’s correspondence with Neil Mitchell is how it was brought to Neils attention in the first place, by default any comment negative to him or his editorials are vetted well before he ever gets to see them, if you don’t believe me try ringing in to the talk-back line and see if you get a run if your comments are negative to Mitchell’s editorial, after your kept waiting for what I am sure is a predetermined time, the staff either hang up on you, (as in bang gone) or inform you that Neil is no longer taking calls on that subject anymore, (and then bang gone) Neil insists that his show isn’t vetted, if that’s so then why are you asked before you go on to describe in detail what you’d like to discuss with Neil, all I can do is congratulate Cathy on been able to get past Neils vets, maybe it’s because your not a teacher, taxi driver, construction worker, or rabid left wing Greenie, by the way Neil it was good to see you give it to the teachers again on Friday for been cretins who have to many holidays, great timing for a bloke that works 3 hours a day 5 days a week, has more holidays than the teachers and construction workers combined and was just taking off on 2 weeks holidays himself.
I don’t think Neil Mitchell would be dumb enough to write the item himself, but he has production staff and presumably the wherewithal to buy other people’s services. He might even have a mate or two with computers. (Nah, scratch that, he’s probably got no mates)
Take a look at similar stories of a similar vintage. Crikey’s comment boards never get this much action this long after the fact, in my experience.
(For Mitchell: hope you’re enjoying the fortnight off. While I can’t stand all the other hopeless 3AW B-teamers, Nick McCallum’s efforts only depress me *slightly* more than your show.)
Maybe one of these commenters is your mate Thomas Kossman? He’s also got a fair bit of time on his hands at the moment.
I particularly enjoyed nina w”s contribution. Crikey has of late been scraping the barrel.
Cathy Green presents herself badly attacking an easy target. If you cannot score easy points of Neil Mitchell, you should not be in the game!.
Quite right Connor, the scandal here has nothing to do with Neil Mitchell, it’s why Vizard gets a guernsey at all.
Mitchell is not the worst of the bunch, but it seems a serious error of judgement to give Vizard any air-time (other than to hang himself).
Does anybody truly believe that this was a legitimate exchange?
I certainly hope Cathy Green has a long career ahead of her in Journalism. I haven’t laughed as hard since the days of Stuart Littlemore on Media Watch. Seems poor Neil Mitchell was done hook line and sinker. Well done girl.
Crikey would do well to employ Cathy; and for that matter her Mum.
The follow-up in today’s comments section is amusing. For no apparent reason, Cathy Green responds to criticism of her piece on Neil Mitchell and Steve Vizard by attacking Neil on a completely different point relating to Lance Franklin and Hawthorn.
It still does not answer the question of what relevance any of this has.