★★★★★ 0/5

Nine backflips on explanation of pokies editorial during NRL

First they were the personal views of commentators, but now Nine concedes an editorial reflected the views of the Network.

19
Leave a comment

The Nine Network has made a backflip on its explanation that  comments by Ray Warren and Phil Gould about poker machine reforms were their own views.

It now says the comments ”reflect the views of the Nine Network”.

On September 29, Nine’s network compliance manager, Shelley Bates, told one viewer,”The comments relating to the federal government’s proposed poker machine tax were purely the opinions of the commentators regarding matters directly affecting the NRL community.”

Nine also gave Media Watch the same explanation.

But it later emerged that Warren said the comments were a directive from “up top.”

The Australian Communications and Media Authority also announced an inquiry into whether Nine had breached the conditions of its broadcasting licence. Independent politicians Andrew Wilkie and independent Senator Nick Xenopohon have lodged complaints with ACMA.

Last week Ms. Bates wrote to another viewer: ”The comments relating to the federal government proposed poker machine tax reflect the views of the Nine Network regarding matters directly affecting the NRL community.

”The comments were part of the program content and were in no way an advertisement; furthermore the Nine Network did not receive any payment or other benefits for the broadcast of the information.”

As to the change of heart, a Nine spokesman said it would be inappropriate to add anything while the authority’s inquiry was under way.

Source: smh.com.au

19 Responses

  1. Boycott 9, Dont watch anything at all they broadast, the most deceitful, evil television network in the history of Australian television. Absolute disgrace. Pathetic liars. Why are they never held to account?

  2. As someone who has seen first hand the effect poker machines have on some peoples lives, i see people who push these things to be just below drug dealers. Harsh you may say but when you see the destuction they cause you soon learn to hate poker machines and the people who profit from them. To a lot of people they are the crack cocaine of the gambling world.

  4. Nine sacks reporters for “lying” during “choppergate” but Nine management lies, tries to get Warren and Gould to take the fall then admits it was lying but doesn’t apologise. It’s time for the head of Nine TV to be fired or step down in disgrace.

  5. @IRT

    Editors of papers give their recommendations on who you should vote for before every Federal election.

    I can’t see that 9 have done anything wrong looking at the code of practice.

  11. Does that mean that if Nine had an opinion on a political party, (say who you should vote for at an election) there would be nothing to stop them devoting airtime to expressing these views as long as it was “part of the program content and were in no way an advertisement” and they did not get paid.

    I would disagree with the part “not receive any payment or other benefits”. They could be seen by a reasonable person to potentially receive more favourably during NRL rights negotiations for example. There more to it than just not receiving money.

  12. You’ve gotta read the Free TV Aus Codes of Practice to see exactly what consititues an “advertisement” (at least in the broadcaster’s eyes, but them’s the rules accepted & ratified by the ACMA).

    The man’s speaking very precisely, and is right – it wasn’t an “advertisement” or “non-program matter” under those rules, nor does it fall under the rules relating to promoting gambling. It may fall under the federal laws regarding political content (i.e. “writtenandauthorisedbyjoebloggsliberalpartycanberra”, etc.) – but that may hinge on how that legislation defines “advertising” vs “promotion” vs “content”.

    Anyone taking bets on the ACMA ruling on this before 2013?

  14. I know the headline says “backflip” but this is much worse, it wasn’t a change of policy as a backflip implies but a complete and utter lie. They pushed out an editorial opinion piece disguised as commentary in a highly viewed mass media programme and then lied about it.
    They should be punished and punished hard. There is clearly institutionalised deceit ingrained in their organisation and it must be removed. They should face an immediate 2 week ban from broadcasting with a further 10 week ban suspended pending an outcome of more enquiries. They should be forced to put in place robust and open reporting procedures to prevent any future broadcasting code breaches. At the moment they are the tv world equivalent of tiger airways and should be dealt with in a similar fashion.

  17. If you or anyone you know are affected by problem gambling, if you believe that it is right to limit the effects of pokie machines on those afflicted bynproblem gambling, you can send a clear message to Channel Nine and the nation.

    Until Channel Nine apologizes for their actions and vows to take an unbiased approach to their reporting ofbthis issue, do not watch their programs.

    The media should not try to influence public opinion on this or any other matter.
    They are here to entertain and to inform, notbto spread propaganda.

    Pick up your remote and vote by changing channels, or switching the “idiot box” off all together.

    You know it makes sense.

  18. haha, how hilarious. Of course Nine has no choice, either say it was responsible for the comments or face losing their licence. Would be even better if the Inquiry finds out otherwise.

  19. So they’re still saying it wasn’t an advertisement yet they advertised a link on screen to a Clubs Australia website. How dumb do they think we are.

Leave a Reply