Hey Ratings! the TV sex scandal
|
Herald Sun commentator Andrew Bolt is never far from the attention of the Wankley judges and this week was no different as he tore into the family of Skye Webbe, the passenger in a high-speed car crash that ended in the death of four people in Canberra. As Skye’s mother Debbie Webbe went on A Current Affair to air her frustrations at the police for their role in the incident, Bolt couldn’t resist:
Bolt went further, criticising Webbe as “she wore a sleeveless shirt to better show her tatt” and alluded to a “scary” subculture that mourned with Jim Beam instead of flowers. Then, just for good measure, he threw this hand grenade into the mix:
ACA, meanwhile, has been entirely distracted by the back-stage drama on Hey Dad!. Amidst the usual schedule of dodgy builders, miracle diets and grocery prices it hit the jackpot this week in airing actress Sarah Monahan’s allegations that she was subjected to sexual abuse on the set. Blanket coverage was spun into ratings gold in the eternal struggle against Today Tonight. While the original story is current affairs television at its seedy and sordid best, it is the subsequent naming and shaming of actor Robert Hughes as the alleged perpetrator that sees ACA take out this week’s Wankley. ACA named Hughes — who played the character of Mr Kelly on the show — before Monahan had provided a statement to NSW police. Hughes is yet to be charged with any offence, yet ACA have been barely able to hide their indignant rage, splashing the word “predator” all over images of Hughes as they dispatched a sleuth to hunt him down in Singapore. In an attempt to justify their crucifixion of Hughes, Grimshaw delivered a sanctimonious explanation on Wednesday night as to why they chose to publicly connect Hughes to the Monahan allegations. Then, last night, ACA muddied the waters further by airing additional allegations, as two sisters — their images blacked out but their voices clear — accused Hughes of abusing them as well. Only now, Grimshaw assured us last night, Wankley Award in hand, will the program co-operate with police. Hughes has denied the allegations and is talking to the lawyers. Guilty or innocent, his inevitable argument of a prejudiced trial seems watertight. |
|
|
|
35 Comments
I must say that I agree with Crikey that any trial of Hughes over these allegations has been prejudiced. ACA is a bloody disgrace, it would be nice to see them hauled up for contempt.If Hughes is in fact innocent of these charges let’s hope he collects heavy damages; although Ch9 probably would regard the payout as a normal business expence.
Incidentally did I hear correctly that the young lady has complained of inappropriate touchoing of her “boobs”, and that this occurred while she was aged six!
Where do you start with ACA ? gutter “Journalism” at its very best. Why doesn’t someone ambush that smarmy ambulance chaser ben fordham with some hard facts about his journalistic cred. Grimshaw will no doubt be nominated for an award for this garbage… I look forward to media watch monday night.
While being far from a Boltean I can sympathise with the frustration and anger about the subculture that the driver and his girlfriend come from. Bottles and cans of whisky and coke left at a makeshift memorial are symptomatic of a toxic subculture that impacts on all of us in virtually every city and town across Australia.
One of the more obvious impacts is the car hooning and the danger, noise pollution and physical damage (eg to parks) that results. Not enough is being done to impede this sort of behaviour. While the sociological causes do need to be addressed, that is a long-term project, and that does not obviate the need for tough laws and the will to enforce them.
The poor “outbreed” the rich - what delightfully apocalyptic imagery. I love it when ultra-right wingers tip their hand and reveal their phobias.
Mrs Webbe had every right to complain, her daughter is seriously injured and she was an innocent party to the whole catastrophe.
The police are cowboys who put the value of a bloody stolen car before the lives of the people they consider to be serious “criminals”, a car can be replaced but lives can’t should be the maxim.
Do you think the owner of the car cares too much about his car with 4 people dead, one very sick and the police copping out as they are?
As for the ACA story, smut at it’s best but what if all of it is true? The Monaghan sisters did not seem to be lying.
How can you be in a stolen car (that is grossly speeding) and be “an innocent party to the whole catastrophe”?
While her culpability is less than her boyfriend’s it is not non-existent.
Given his history is it plausible to believe that she was unaware of the manner in which he was likely to use the car?
The desire to deny any personal responsibility defies commonsense and is just leftish cant.
Good Lord, Shepherd, at least make SOME attempt to get your facts straight before hitting the ‘send’ key.
Yet more ill-informed dross from someone who clearly only gets half the story before regurgitating a combination of sensationalist media and their own half-baked interpretation of events.
Andrew Bolt is hard right, but so what? Sometimes he is correct. Skye is not innocent.
Rich outbreeding the poor or vice versa, is not accurate though, it is much more complex than that, with the undereducated outbreeding the educated. We can fix that, by making it possible (economically) for everyone to get a good education.
“Two centuries ago in Britain, the rich outbred the poor, and pushed their values down the social scale.”
Bolt’s fact-checking is Rundlesque. In the early 1800s the rich were terrified of “the mob”, who were by this date rampantly outbreeding the pedigreed classes. The occasional outbursts of upper-class savagery against The Mob (even in relatively civilised Britain) showed their fear. Marx and Engels stirred the cauldron on the 1840s. The poor continued to multiply in spite of appalling conditions.
The rich invariably try to impose their values of course, but gradually in this period the working class organised through religion, politics and unionism. We owe democracy to the ideological colonisation of the rich by the 19thC poor.
And how typical of private schoolies like Bolt to blame others for the moral denegeration of their own class:
“Now the poor — many virtuous, yes, but others lazy, careless or unsocialised — outbreed the rich, and the mob’s values are pushed up.”
So we should blame the lumpenproletariat for the legions of cokesnorting suits and bankerwankers- right Andrew?
Possibly the first and last time that I will agree with the Bolter.
Then he goes and spoils his win with the second half of the quoted article.
Oh, well, I will have to wait a bit longer.
Has Bolt ever taken to task any Private School Boys who make Facebook pro-rape pages, or does that drop below his moral radar?
Generally I ignore the existence of TT and ACA. Occasionally I’m in a house when one of them are on, and it makes me angry to hear the twaddle they present as “news”. So I haven’t watched the coverage - I’m completely ignorant of what was in the show. So I’ve been having a quick look on youtube.
Ben oxenbould’s interview is astonishing. If I was in his position, the only appropriate thing to do (IMHO) would be to speak to the police. Going on the telly would be out of the question. Not only does he add to any prejudice if a trial happens, he’s stuffed if the guy’s found innocent - if he was paid a fee, I hope it was big enough to cover the risk of being sued later. Anything he says in that interview can now be brought up on the witness stand, so I hope he got everything absolutely right. When the balloon goes up, the TV station will protect itself - Ben will have to make his own arrangements.
TV at its finest people. Thank God we’re finally getting some real news here. All this acrimonious tripe coming out from the rest of the world with their economies flailing, war and disposession of innocent millions due to the corrupt and cruel Governments. Say nothing of the kleptocratic business leaders steering world economies into eternal poverty and being bailed out by taxpayers. And then there’s Global warming aaargghhhh, it’s just such a drag man…..
Finally, something juicy and important. Hooray for unfounded, baseless vacuous, media plop. What’s next - the new Atkins diet? How about the healing effects of colonic irrigation? Or the illigitimate children of Tiger Wood? Yeah, finally something that we can talk about at dinner parties.
This is the real stuff. The stuff that really matters and I for one will be watching this higly important media sensation unfold hour by hour so that I can truly be informed of what’s happening in the world.
Please tell me I’m not alone in recalling the days when ACA had some substance? That was the Mike Willesee era when viewers could actually witness an intelligent political interview. Willessee was an excellent interviewer: calm & controlled, his technique was a marvel to watch.
ACA & its co-joined twin, TT, should not be described as current affairs but, more accurately, as current crud.
The Nine Network has absolutely nothing to offer viewers with an IQ larger than their show size - apart from Laurie Oakes’ reports & weekly interview. No doubt he fondly remembers Packer’s original ‘Sunday’ programme …and weeps into his beer.
Bolt was spot on in this case, fair dinkum some people need a licence to breed. It’s a leper colony out in the real world and Bolt was right ot expose it. An innocent family has been wiped out and all the mother could say was “it’s the fault of the police”. Several questions need to be asked of people prior to copulation, ” Do you have a job”? “How will you support a child” ? “Are you an idiot”? Considering ‘Yes ‘will be the most common answer to the third question your application has been denied for copulation at this time, now go home and keep it in your pants!
As for A Current Affair, this program has really hit rock bottom this past week and whoever advises them on legal matters is obviously being ignored. This case has been prejudiced to the point where it is now impossible to charge the man in question and have justice served.
Both stories were a low point and were blatant ratings grabbers.
This week the WANKLEY goes to….
CRIKEY.
If that Hey Dad girl had been abused then as far as I am concerned a PR blitz to smear the abusers reputation is fine by me. Why should she have to follow to laid out path to air her grievances. If I was her I would want some retribution too.
What sort of righteous and uppity horse are you guys riding on.
Many people have since come out an verified the abuse- there was a bloody photo with the creeps hand down her pants.
And pinning all this on ACA is silly. The girl is now and adult and is grown up enough to make her own decisions about how she handles this.
So good on ACA and boo for Crikey.
Blue_Green clearly does not respect the rule of law, or of evidence-based justice. I’m no egal eagle, but it appears to me that the whole point of the article has gone right over his block head.
NO formal complaint has been made. No facts have been presented. No rebuttal has been heard. No guilt has been established. Yet he is advocating public shaming of a person, purely because a TV program has aired a person’s grievance about matters which date a decade or two back.
So sad, that this contributor lives and breatahes and moves amongst us.
I feel soiled to have read Blue_Green’s message.
Ben Fordham and Tracy Grimshaw have to be congratulated on the finest hatchet job AcA and channel 9 could do on channel 7, what a way to win the 7pm rateings slot, it just goes to show how cheque book journalism and foot in the door interviewing has replaced hard facts and factuality. how much was miss Monahan paid for this journalist brilliance, we will never probably know, but i can see Tracy collecting her walkley now. TSK TSK.
Blue_Green, we do have a justice system in place here in Australia. If the girl has a grievance then ACA was not the place to bring down the guillotine on the man’s head.
It is now impossible for this man to be charged and given a fair trial in Australia.
Why has this come to light now? She is 32 years old? Why has it taken so long? There was obviously a problem with the man in question, why has it taken 17 years to come to light?
And that’s exactly what Se7en was doing on Sunrise on Thursday(?) morning: their ‘entertainment’ reporter was playing “Cover Your Arse”, at pians to seperate Se7en from the actual producers of hey Dad, saying that Se7en ‘just rented a room’ to the producers, and that it was a seperate company, etc etc.
s / pians / pains
Actually Blue_Green, if this girl was so upset after all these years about what happened to her, then the correct course of action was to go to the police, then to the media. Not the other way around.
I’m sure if it was your name slandered across the media you’f be screaming for blood and the correct procedure of the law.
All you have done is add yourself to the careless or unsocialised that Andrew Bolt talked about.
I don’t ‘do’ ACA or TT - I can learn more from a Chinese newspaper even though I don’t read a word. But sometimes shocking things are done to kids and the law does nothing in the defence of the kids. I also say good on ACA for following up on it. If it’s proven incorrect, they’ll have to pay heavily in court.
As for Bolter - I think he’s right. Occupants in stolen and speeding cars have to held accountable for road deaths. It should not be a defense to simply plead ignorance. They should be charged with accessories. It may make a few people think twice and refuse to be part of an act. And we all know that these fools don’t fire as well when there isn’t a cheer squad egging them on.
Well now, wazzup Crikey? It seems the Lord (if that’s yer cuppa) is not the only one to move in mysterious ways/wonders to perceive blah blah…?
I’m goin to be good and address Venise correctly. Where is the post by Venise A??
Finally, somebody had the guts to break ranks. Where did her post go??
It was here literally two minutes ago! Nothing defamatory. No breach of forum etty.
SO?? Where is it?
I don’t give a rats arse whether- friend/foe.
Bring this posters comment back. Please.
____________________________
Yet again ACA/TT ridicule. Yet again I’ll defend them (I have NO connections with either).
There is NO other avenue for these types of stories, — -and NO!! I disagree that they (stories) should not be aired. Where the hell do you go with this type of stuff?
Yet again I will say that these two programmes are a blood sport for those who wish to boast a superior cut of jib!!
I will relish the time when a serious pundit has the great guts to say that they do have a role to play. Because they DO.
_____________
Perhaps a he said/she said scenario can be subject to criticism. But there are a number of folk making allegations in this matter.
I admit I look forward to Mr Hughes’ legal reps issuing proceedings for defamation. We’ll see.
IF these allegations are true then well done for speaking of them-even at this stage. MY criticism is of an agent of the complainant, who wanted a published story first, then electronic media, Police being a distant third. Still…, I suppose as a pragmatist, if there is money to be made..The risk of course, is that the credibility of the person making such allegations is severely tarnished.
I am also sick to death of hearing justification for the alleged perp, because the alleged victim ‘took too long to come forward/he won’t get a fair trial etc.,
An intelligent society prides itself on justice for all. That is commendable,-but it is flawed in an imperfect society and justice system that is so preoccupied with ‘the law’ and justice that its focus shifts from the alleged victim.
It IS only a tiny minority who bring up proven fallacious claims. ALL must then be suspect as a result, and many suffer further because of this suspicion.
_____________________________________________________
Kate Baker: it would be interesting to get YOUR opinion on either of these topics??
…….rather than a wasted post in attacking another poster, with no evidence of why you disagree..so strongly??
Lovely John Bennetts,
I apparently don’t deserve to live or breathe because I defend the right of a sexual abuse victim to talk to people about it. Perhaps all sexual abuse vicitms should keep their stories to themselves. Perhaps you feel they are the ones at fault and it is to their shame that they have been abused.
Perhaps you dont understand anything about the psychology of sexual abuse. “why did she wait until she was 32, why did it take 17 years to come to light?”. What sort of nonsense is this? It takes years and years to get over this shit, accept it and want to act on it.
I love the defence of the rights of the perpetrator and criticism of the victim.
Thnk you Elan for some sense.
And I assume you guys didnt watch the broadcast. If you had you would have seen a photo of the man with his hands down the front of a 12 year old girls pants.
blue_green
If your house was burgled or your car stolen what would you do? Would you think about it awhile & then approach producers of a tabloid current affairs programme - or would you report it to the police? Sure, the crime of sexual abuse is more abhorrent but the process for justice is the same. First port of call is the police.
If this young woman is a victim of sexual abuse then she has now been ably assisted by ACA to compound that abuse. Because now she has damaged any case she may have had in a court of law: legal counsel for the alleged perpetrator will argue, quite reasonably, that the case against their client has been prejudiced by the media.
The young woman has become a victim of a legal system she could have used to seek justice & retribution - but which, through the auspices of ACA, she can no longer use effectively.
Cheers BLUE_GREEN.
But not entirely sense…..em, I went looking at previous posts to link into your latest post, and came upon that of the 28th 10.12pm:
……….that looks EXACTLY like the one I attributed to Venise A! (aaaahhhhh! the dreaded oldtimers disease ((not really a joke, I know)).
Apologies to Crikey-it appears I got it wrong. Bugger!
_______________________
We watch and wait regarding developments on the Hughes affair. Australia does have an extradition treaty with Singapore.
We’ll see.
DENISE MARCOS: the advice of her agent was self-serving. She makes money; he makes money as a result.
However, you are incorrect in the assumption that this will negate any legal proceedings. ANY defence lawyer will now concentrate on that fact, but the essence of any possible such proceedings, is the alleged abuse.
IF Monaghan had taken LEGAL rather than PR advice; she would I agree, be in a more credible position. The trouble of course, is that the lure of publicity is strong, because IT pays. Legal advice? YOU pay!
BUT: none of this detracts from the basis of the allegations. It will be interesting to see if they proceed……….
What I would rather see is Mr Hughes proceeding with a defamation action. I doubt he will, but.. you never know..
Thanks Denise,
I agree that is preferable to follow due process when regards to leagal matters. However, the power balance is generally unfair when it comes to sexual assault. I do not begrudge the girl for not following procedure when it comes to this. The perpetrator definitley did not follow any procedures.
As for prejudicial publicity- I do not buy that leagal argument either. SHe will have a fair trial and I trust the jury to weigh up evidence. We live in an information saturated age and their is almost no high profile trial where jurors walk into a case blind. There was a one high rpofile murder case that was overturned on appeal- the Peter Dupas murder of Maria Halvagas. My understanding was that is was overturned becasue the judge did not adequately inform the jurors to put aside what they have heard before, ie a technicality.
And the in the appeal there was a dissenting judgement that said “Without wishing to be facetious, on (Dupas’s) case as argued before us … Jack the Ripper, having once been convicted of the murder of one of his victims, would thereafter be immune from further prosecution. One can only speculate about the possibility of trying Charles Manson, Ronald Biggs or, dare I say it, Osama Bin Laden.”
Elan, I was not sure whether there was an extradition treaty with Singapore but it is clear that the NSW police are taking it seriously. http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/police-act-on-hey-dad-sex-abuse-claims/story-e6freuy9-1225846971965
Blue_Green:You are missing the point, in every democratic country in the world that has a justice system the perpetrator has rights, whether you like it or not. I am sorry for the girl who has been abused, i believe her story, my beef is she went to A Current Affair first and not the Police, she hasn’t engaged a Lawyer for if she had, he would have strongly advised her not to go to on air and expose such a public figure and jeopardise any possible case that could be made against him. What has happenend now is the case will be extremely difficult to go to trial here in Australia, the perpetrator will most likely go unpunished. ACA went for ratings instead of justice and that is what stinks here, it is obvious something was definately wrong with the behaviour of Mr Hughes, i doubt we will ever know as to what extent.
ACA was approached. The rest is exactly what I said.
We’ll see.
ELAN: Agreed.
@Bluegreen:
“I apparently don’t deserve to live or breathe because I defend the right of a sexual abuse victim to talk to people about it.”
I stand by my comment. You and others are advocating the loose talk which is being referred to and the damaging effects of populism from ACA. Of course, alleged victims should be encouraged to talk discretely about there experience, to seek advice and counsel. Public humiliation isn’t to be recommended at all.
There are several winners and only one loser in all of this.
ACA: Wins ratings
PR agency: A slice of the pie.
Complainant: Whatever is left of the pie, but much reduced chance of formal completion of resulting actions, if any and a lot of public exposure, much of it not positive. Net loser.
The rest of us are onlookers.
Bluegreen’s contribution has been responded to by virtually all other correspondents, especially Johnfromplanetearth.
Enough said, I’m off.
“Enough said, I’m off.”
Indeed you are. And patronising with it.