Ten milks Schapelle saga.
Channel Ten aired an interesting item last night about Schapelle Corby. The crux of the story was cellphone footage of Corby's former cellmate, fellow Australian convicted drug smuggler Renae Lawrence, saying that Corby had told Lawrence she was guilty of bringing drugs into Bali, and that Corby had admitted she had done the same three times before without getting caught. Lawrence also said Corby "played crazy" in order to be let off earlier.
The footage was sold to the network for a "small fee" by a third party, who represented the person who took the video. It's not clear whether Lawrence gave permission for the footage to be used -- Crikey
didn't hear back from Ten on that question this morning -- but she did speak to Ten's reporter off-camera to say she stood by what she had said in the video. It's understood the story was shopped around to other networks, which rejected it. Corby's family released a statement last night denying the allegations and saying their airing was "extremely hurtful".
In terms of ratings, Ten's Eyewitness News
(where the allegations were aired) did lift its ratings to 768,000 viewers last night (last Monday Eyewitness News
had 661,000 viewers). It was still half a million viewers behind both Seven and Nine news. -- Myriam Robin
The Oz on form on WA.
As soon as the Western Australian Senate results became clear, one thought ran through Australian progressives with equal parts trepidation and joy: my god, what will The Australian
say? With Abbott down 7%, Labor down 6%, the Greens up 6% ... wow. It's like knowing that the ultimate Collingwood tragic owns a gun and a bottle of gin, and it's 10 minutes before another losing grand final.
Cometh the hour, cometh the man. The Oz
did not disappoint, with an "exclusive" from the polling company it owns (when will the Oz
start claiming TV listings? "Exclusive: free-to-air channels to broadcast a variety of programs, The Australian
can reveal ...") to claim
-- pre WA vote -- that the Coalition was in its "best position since September 2013". The figures? The Coalition/Labor two-party preferred had flipped within the margin of error to 51-49 Coalition. Better was to come with Nick Cater, the sage of Surry Hills. Cater's book The Lucky Culture
argued that "sophisticates" were stifling the voices of good god-fearing, plain-speaking Aussies, etc, etc. Cater's thesis about a silent conservative majority never matched the stats -- Australians are liberal-minded, irreligious, unconservative -- and the WA result tended to prove that, with votes flowing away from Labor, when it was revealed the party's No. 1 candidate was a cranky religious reactionary.
How to square that? It was Labor that had let down
Joe Bullock -- hence his magnificent 22% primary result! If the party couldn't support a man who effectively told voters not to vote for the Labor Party, well, that was bad news for, um, Labor. You follow? Of course not. Because it's asinine. The sole purpose is to avoid the obvious truth, as noted by your correspondent last week
-- that Labor now has within its higher reaches so many right-wingers who would prefer that the Liberals be in government than that the Greens have access to power that it cannot function effectively. Opposition Leader Bill Shorten says he's going to sort it out. He sounds like a bloke with arthritis promising to clean out the garage -- Guy Rundle
Julia Gillard on Game of Thrones.
This was an inspired piece of commissioning. Over at The Guardian,
someone suggested Julia Gillard use her occasional column to review the first episode of the new series of Game of Thrones
. While this was as cringe-worthy as you'd expect, it certainly got everyone talking, which, we suppose, was the point. Gillard's made the front page of UK's print edition of The Guardian
with her review, which makes us wonder, what political leaders could The Guardian
commission to review television next? John Howard on the Gallipoli miniseries airing next year? Kevin Rudd on House of Cards
? Or Paul Keating on The West Wing
(just kidding -- Keating would never do it ...) -- Myriam Robin
We can almost excuse the typo in this morning's Australian
. Subeditors are busy, there are never enough of them, and things get overlooked ...
We're more concerned about using "less tha[n]" for something that can be counted, when it should be fewer. What's more, the Oz subs know it should be fewer, as evidenced by the first paragraph of the story ...