Comments on: Dear Neil Mitchell: questions on conflict of interest

By: jezz

jezz — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

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.

By: mike smith

mike smith — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

I’m curious as to whether Neil gave permission for private correspondence to be published.

By: peterh

peterh — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

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.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

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.

By: matilda

matilda — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

‘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.

By: Brizer

Brizer — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

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.

By: matilda

matilda — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

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.

By: Jane at Crikey

Jane at Crikey — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Cathy sent the story in off her own bat. She is not related to editor Jonathan Green.

By: Tim

Tim — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

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.

By: nic

nic — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

And why did you consider it newsworthy enough to publish?

By: CS

CS — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

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?

By: jezz

jezz — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

I wonder if it’s any coincidence that Neil’s regular thursday column in the Herald-Sun is missing today. Seems strange.

By: Jezz

Jezz — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

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.

By: MediaMook

MediaMook — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

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.

By: knoxville

knoxville — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Couldn’t help but notice the similarity between Cathy’s surname and that of Crikey’s editor. Coincidence? I think we should be told.

By: nina w

nina w — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

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.

By: cathy green

cathy green — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

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.

By: nic

nic — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

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?

By: nic

nic — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Andrew,

Are you suggesting that a commentator on this thread is Neil Mitchell? How odd.

By: ColS

ColS — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

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.

By: Anthony Dale

Anthony Dale — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

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.

By: Robert C

Robert C — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

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.

By: Andrew

Andrew — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

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.

By: JamesK

JamesK — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

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!.

By: Dave Liberts

Dave Liberts — Thu, 01 Jan 1970 10:00:00 +0000

Quite right Connor, the scandal here has nothing to do with Neil Mitchell, it’s why Vizard gets a guernsey at all.