TONY JONES:
The next question tonight comes from Stephanie Fabjancic.
STEPHANIE FABJANCIC:
My question is directed to Ray Martin. In light of the News of the World hacking scandal, our own print media has been put under the spotlight, with a Federal MP even accusing News Limited of being a threat to democracy. Our mainstream news programs now showcase a circus of celebrities and spend big dollars for rights to stories like the Bali boy. Is there really any hope for our news media to reform itself and regain our trust and respect?
TONY JONES:
Ray Martin?
RAY MARTIN:
Yes. Short answer's yes. The Bali boy story is just not true. I checked that out today, figuring I was going to get a question about it. It just ain't true. There was no deal involved.
TONY JONES:
Which part is not true? The part where they were negotiating with the agent?
RAY MARTIN:
Oh, yes. But the 200 or the $300 and this large money being paid to the family.
TONY JONES:
300,000.
RAY MARTIN:
Well, you know, the habit is, pick a figure and triple it in terms of what it might be. I am told categorically there is no such deal. You'd be a fairly ordinary journalist to think that you might interfere in a case where this boy is going to actually… The family is going to go to court in Bali on Friday, in advance of that, apart from paying money for it.
TONY JONES:
Ray, can I just ask you this, because you've done paid interviews in the past. Chequebook journalism is not unknown at Channel Nine. It's pretty obvious, actually, that the agent was running around to both Channel Nine and Channel Seven, offering up this boy for an interview. Would you have done the interview if someone asked you to?
RAY MARTIN:
I wouldn't have, but that's the way of the world at the moment. In England… You talked about the News of the World. In England, you pay for politicians to appear on camera. You pay for journalists. You pay for policemen, as we now know, police officers to appear. That is the way of the world. I am sure Channel Nine and Channel Seven would love not to pay anything for any chequebook journalism, but that's the competitive field until they reach an agreement in this. The further question you have…
TONY JONES:
Can I interrupt you there? Could you explain for us how it works, this competitive field, because when you have this Grant Vandenberg character, the agent, running around between the two major networks, what goes on inside the networks when they're deciding whether or not to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars for an interview such as that?
RAY MARTIN:
Well, someone's regarded this as the major story at the moment and this 14-year-old boy has been on the front page of the papers for several weeks now since he was caught. Someone decides that, beyond Kim, our story earlier, that this is a big news story and someone starts with a figure and the other network decides to take them on and outbid them. So clearly there are, you know, two major programs at Seven and Nine that have been bidding for this and they up the ante. It's fierce bidding, whether it's for a Lindy Chamberlain in those days, or for this particular family.
TONY JONES:
And both CEOs in the different organisations, it would have gone up to them for a decision, is that how it works?
RAY MARTIN:
Absolutely, on that sort of money involved. Again, I'm not a spokesman for Channel Nine. I left Channel Nine formally a few years ago. But my understanding in that one was that, yes, it's obviously a good story. Whether it is worth money, that's debatable, but…
TONY JONES:
Would it be worth money if the boy, for example, wasn't allowed to take his mask off because it might compromise his entire future if he's revealed on camera talking, as a 15-year-old, about a crime that he's committed?
JESSICA RUDD:
Isn't that where the mysterious blurring comes in or am I watching the wrong channel?
RAY MARTIN:
Yeah. No, absolutely. There's a reason why we don't actually have children on camera, especially with a charge like this. But I think it is debatable, to answer your question earlier, Tony, I think it is debatable that anyone pays money for this, but clearly a decision has been made to get in the game.
TONY JONES:
Kate Ellis.
KATE ELLIS:
Well, I mean, I think that we have some…
TONY JONES:
The general question was about trust, by the way.
KATE ELLIS:
Well, I think we have some good media, I think we have some shockingly bad media, in terms of accuracy, in terms of blurring news and entertainment, news and opinion. But I also think, at the risk of being unpopular, that there's another side to this. There's a reason why people are running around trying to pay, you know, 200, $300,000 for a story and that's because we're tuning in and we're rewarding them when they do that and I think sometimes we have to consider that, well, we have a say. We have a say in what newspapers we buy. We have a say in what current affairs programs we tune in on and we have a say in what we think is acceptable and unacceptable standards of journalism as well.
TONY JONES:
Well, this comes back to the first question in a way. What is the fascination? Why do people tune in?
KATE ELLIS:
I don't want to talk about Kim Kardashian tonight.
TONY JONES:
That's alright.
KATE ELLIS:
Why do they tune it? I don't know.
JESSICA RUDD:
I think there's this kind of prurient interest in what happens, for example, in a family at a moment like this or, you know, what's happening behind-the-scenes in the Kardashian family and we all sort of… We'd like to think that we don't watch it, but a lot of us do and it's sad because, as Kate says, we are driving this market for chequebook journalism because we're watching it, because it rates well and, if we don't like it, we should boycott it.
TONY JONES:
Just briefly, Kate Ellis, I just thought about this…
KATE ELLIS:
Uh-oh.
TONY JONES:
Well, proceeds of crime legislation would suggest that if you've committed a crime and then benefit from it from a television organisations, from a publisher or whatever, a la David Hicks, the Government will move against you. Would they move against a media organisation that tried to pay for this boy's story?
KATE ELLIS:
Well, obviously this boy's story is still before the courts, so in terms of the level of crime that's been committed and the outcome of that…
TONY JONES:
If he were to acknowledge or admit that he had committed a crime, would the Government stop a news organisation paying for his story?
KATE ELLIS:
Well, I imagine — and this is all a hypothetical at this point — I don't want to reflect on the guilt or innocence of this particular boy, but I would imagine that the proceeds of crime provisions would be applicated.
TONY JONES:
Malcolm Turnbull?
MALCOLM TURNBULL:
Well, I don't know whether the proceeds of crimes legislation has an extra territorial effect. It may be that it doesn't apply to crimes committed in foreign countries.
TONY JONES:
Well, it certainly did with David Hicks.
MALCOLM TURNBULL:
Well, yeah, there was a…
RAY MARTIN:
That was a special case though, wasn't it?
MALCOLM TURNBULL:
It was a rather special case. I think but, look, the… The principle may well be the same…
TONY JONES:
The broader question was about trust in the media. Sorry, I should bring to you that.
MALCOLM TURNBULL:
Look, you're dead right and I think there's a couple of things at work here. I think that a lot of the media is now narrowcasting. We've seen a proliferation of media through pay TV, through a multiplication of radio stations, obviously through the internet, and increasingly, media outlets and broadcasters are not seeking to present a balanced view across the board, they are expressing a particularly strong opinion for one kind or another. Alan Jones in Sydney does not pretend to give an objective account of the affairs of the day. He is giving — and he makes this quite clear — he is giving a particularly strong opinion and that appeals to… I guess, most people listen to him agree with him. Some people listen to him, no doubt, to get their blood level, blood pressure, going in the morning. You know, it's cheaper than a cup of coffee. But this is the challenge — where is there in the middle of all of these opinions of what has ceased to be a news cycle and becomes an opinion cycle, where is there the facts, the objective account, the rational account, and that is what a lot of people, I think yourself included, are feeling frustrated about missing in the media today and it's a very big question and it's something that the wonders of the internet… ..it's a problem the wonders of the internet are actually exacerbating rather than helping.