Media Diary: Seven takes hard line on DV, but quiet on staffers

The Seven West Media-owned newspaper The West Australian has been running front pages for days on the issue, but the company won’t comment on Seven presenter Ben Cousins and columnist Dani Laidley, both who have stalking priors.

Ben Cousins reads the sports news for Channel 7 in Perth.

The Seven West Media-owned newspaper, The West Australian, has been running front pages for days on the domestic violence issue, splashing with headlines including, No More, Tone Deaf on DV Crisis and Stand Up.

The paper, edited by Anthony De Ceglie up until last week, was certainly going hard on the topic which has made headlines all around the country.

But it’s the very same paper that has former North Melbourne coach Dani Laidley as a columnist.

In 2020, Laidley was charged with stalking a woman with whom the ex-footballer had been in a relationship with for three years, and pleaded guilty to stalking her after making dozens of calls and sending unwanted text messages.

Laidley went to her work, parked outside her home and left flowers on her car, and also took photos of her at home.

Laidley was put on a good behaviour bond but when Seven was asked repeatedly last week about whether it would continue to have the former AFL player as a columnist given its stance on unacceptable treatment of women, Diary was not provided with a response.

Seven also appointed former AFL star Ben Cousins as its Perth sports newsreader last year, despite him being charged with stalking his former partner and jailed for seven months in 2020.

Diary asked Seven about Cousins’ tenure at the network given The West’s strong stance on violence against women, and whether Cousins will remain part of the upcoming Dancing With The Stars series.

But again, on an issue its newspaper arm has been so vocal about, a Seven spokesman ignored repeated requests for comment.

Radio host’s crossed wires on scoop that wasn’t

One of the biggest gripes among journalists is when a rival publication claims a story as their own ‘exclusive’ when in actual fact it is not.

So it would have been worth 3AW drive host Jacqui Felgate tuning into her very own station earlier on Thursday morning when newsreader David Armstrong told listeners during the 7.30am news bulletin about a story broken by the ABC.

“Child killer Robert Farquharson is preparing a new appeal against his life sentence,” Armstrong announced.

“He was found guilty of murdering his three sons by driving his car into a dam on Father’s Day in 2005.

“The ABC’s reporting he’s launching a fresh bid for freedom by making use of new laws introduced four years ago which allow for an appeal if there is fresh and compelling evidence.”

3AW presenter Jacqui Felgate.

The report was filed earlier that morning by ABC reporters Nicole Asher and Rhiana Whitson. But when Felgate interviewed The Age’s Michael Bachelard about the story on her program later that day, she was quick to do a bit of cross promotion and shower Nine Entertainment’s newspaper arm, notably The Age, with praise for getting the so-called scoop.

She concluded their seven-minute interview by telling 3AW listeners: “Michael Bachelard, senior writer at The Age who broke this story. You can see it at The Age online.”

Only problem was it wasn’t The Age or Bachelard’s scoop at all, it was the ABC’s.

Curiously, when the interview between Felgate and Bachelard was uploaded to 3AW’s website a short time later, Felgate’s comments about it being the newspaper’s exclusive were wiped from the audio, with Felgate instead heard saying: “Michael Bachelard, senior writer at The Age … you can see it at The Age online.”

When Diary contacted Bachelard to find out what happened he set the record straight about who had ownership of the scoop, saying: “I didn’t break the story, it was the ABC.”

It’s understood that when the error was made by Felgate, it was deleted before the interview was uploaded to 3AW’s website in the hope that few people would notice.

Lingering odour of a Sneesby spray

On a Monday morning in late 2022, Nine boss Mike Sneesby was running his eye over The Sydney Morning Herald when he saw red.

Media writer Zoe Samios, whose work appeared across both Nine’s metro mastheads, the SMH and The Age, had written a straight news story about a content streaming war being waged between Stan (owned by Nine Entertainment) and Foxtel (65 per cent owned by News Corp, publisher of The Australian).

The story was not favourable to Stan, insofar as it reported that Foxtel had edged out Stan to clinch the rights to the content.

And while the story was factually correct, Sneesby wasn’t happy.

The CEO dialled Samios directly, delivering a tirade that Diary has been told was “overly aggressive, inappropriate and uncalled for”.

Several key personnel at Nine at the time became aware of the phone call, but it was dealt with in-house.

Nine Entertainment CEO Mike Sneesby. Picture: NCA NewsWire / Martin Ollman.

In recent weeks, Nine has repeatedly refused to comment about the incident. It is not known what, if any, counselling was provided to the parties involved.

Details of the fiery exchange have only recently spread beyond a tight core of Nine executives; it’s understood several senior editorial figures at the SMH and The Age were never told about it.

Indeed, Nine insiders expressed disquiet that Sneesby had not conveyed his displeasure with the article via the publishing division’s editorial chain-of-command, and instead had delivered his unfiltered spray direct to the young reporter.

Putting aside for one moment the “aggressive” nature of the call, it was also highly unusual.

Media CEOs rarely pick up the phone to speak directly to journalists, despite what some conspiracy theorists might claim.

The “church and state” rule, governing the relationship between the executive and editorial arms, is unspoken but it exists.

Sneesby has enjoyed a largely scandal-free reign during his three years as the media company’s chief executive officer, and is widely seen to have done a solid job in the role to date.

He ascended to the top job following the resignation in late 2020 of Hugh Marks, who stepped down after revealing he was in a relationship with a former colleague (that began when Marks was still CEO).

At that time, Sneesby was the CEO of Stan, having driven the streaming service since its launch in 2015.

Sneesby, via Nine’s communications team, declined to respond to repeated questions from The Australian about the incident.

Samios did not respond to phone calls and text messages.

Tough call

The AFL made an announcement last week that all players, senior coaches and umpires would come together and lock arms in the centre of the ground before each game to pay a silent tribute to women who have lost their lives after suffering abuse. It’s fair to say the reaction in media circles was overwhelmingly positive.

Highlighting the horrors of domestic violence is an important issue and most media outlets threw their support behind the AFL’s initiative.

But talkback radio told a different story. No one was questioning the importance of the cause itself, but plenty were querying whether it was appropriate for the AFL to embrace one social cause ahead of others.

3AW host Tom Elliott said many people in his hometown of Melbourne were uneasy about the AFL weighing in on social issues, regardless of how worthy they are.

“Do we honestly want the AFL to have a position on each and every one of these issues?” Elliott asked listeners, after rattling off a list of hot topics that have been close to the league’s heart in recent times.

The broadcaster noted that North Melbourne player Tarryn Thomas – who is serving an 18-match ban after he was found guilty by the AFL to have repeatedly threatened a woman with violence – could be recruited again at the end of the season.

ABC presenter Rafael Epstein.

3AW’s Tom Elliott.

“You cannot have it both ways,” Elliott said.

“I don’t like the league getting involved in social and political issues. I suspect there’s a lot of other people like me, (who) don’t go to the football to be lectured about all the ills of society.”

Caller Joe agreed: “For them to do these sorts of things, it’s not only hypocrisy, it’s just stupid. I don’t think their marketing department actually understands how the public view them.”

Harry phoned in to say: “The AFL, once again they are picking a popular topic and throwing their 20 cents in. I have zero tolerance for domestic violence but when are we going to look at male suicide due to psychological abuse?”

But callers to ABC Melbourne’s mornings radio host Raf Epstein had a different take on it.

Epstein told listeners: “I think most people would feel it’s worth the AFL giving this a try.”

And callers to his program agreed, including Monica who phoned up to say: “I think it’s terrific that the AFL are taking this step. A minute’s silence; I think it’s really wonderful.”

Fitz cops friendly fire

So, what’s the status of the civil war at The Sydney Morning ­Herald, after chief sports writer Andrew Webster absolutely torched his SMH colleague Peter FitzSimons in an opinion piece last Friday?

Diary understands the gifted pair – who are both rumoured to possess appropriately-sized egos – have never been close, but it seems a safe bet that they won’t be seated next to each other at the SMH Christmas party this year.

The gloves are off.

On Friday, Webster took umbrage at FitzSimons’ “condescending” coverage of the concussion debate that has gripped the sport of rugby league, accusing his co-worker of being an up-himself elitist who routinely uses his column to prove he’s right and others (that is, everyone who holds a slightly different view to him) are wrong.

Golly! Is Webster really suggesting that readers have grown weary of FitzSimons’ career-long habit of lecturing lesser mortals from his media pulpit? What possible evidence could he have?!

Webster slammed FitzSimons’ columns as tedious, and also relentless – but not in a positive, never-give-up kind of way. Both Webster and FitzSimons have written acres of copy over the past few years about the concussion crisis in contact sports, particularly rugby league.

Both acknowledge the seriousness of the matter, and the pressing need to protect players from the lifelong consequences of on-field head injuries.

The day before Webster wrote his explosive column, the SMH published an article by FitzSimons that advocated tweaking the rules of rugby league to limit high-­impact collisions from kick-offs – a current talking point in the sport, albeit an idea that has been almost universally pooh-poohed by those connected with the game.

FitzSimons, obviously, is in favour of changing the rules; ­Webster is not.

SMH columnist Peter FitzSimons and chief sports writer Andrew Webster.

According to Webster, FitzSimons had ridiculed his coverage (“it hurt, but didn’t surprise”) of the dangers of concussion, adding that his know-it-all approach to the issue does not sit well with NRL players, clubs, coaches and other commentators, who hold the view that the veteran SMH columnist diminishes their struggles to deal with the prevention, and reality, of chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE).

“Rugby league people are growing tired of being positioned as out-of-touch bogans who don’t care about their own,” Webster wrote, referencing FitzSimons’ tendency to criticise “people who offer a contrary or slightly different position to him on concussion”.

“I’m not sure how many clubs, coaches, players, and officials to whom FitzSimons speaks, but I talk to them all day, every day, and I can assure you the issue is foremost in their minds,” Webster penned.

“He preaches about concussion. These people are living with it.

“How dare someone accuse us of not caring about these people, our mates, just so they can fill column inches to prove they’re right and we’re wrong.

“Wouldn’t it be more effective to bring people with you on this concussion journey, instead of continually belittling them?”

Diary approached both FitzSimons and Webster to see if they had mended their fence, but neither responded.

SMH sports boss Ian Fuge also didn’t text back, while the tabloid’s editor Bevan Shields, who presumably was made aware last Thursday night that Webster was about to unleash on FitzSimons in print, stayed shtum as well.

And despite having columns in the Saturday and Sunday editions of the masthead, FitzSimons has opted not to address Webster’s epic take-down in print.

Nor has Webster followed up on his initial drive-by. But we feel obliged to call out his claim in his Friday column that “there is nothing quite as boring as columnists trading barbs in their allocated space in their own newspaper over a particular issue”.

“Self-indulgent gibber,” Webster called it.

Diary couldn’t disagree more!

The Oz’s special source

Sour grapes – definitely not burgers – were on the menu at The Australian Financial Review on Monday.

The Nine-owned tabloid’s Rear Window column spent 736 words on badmouthing Simon Crowe, the founder of burger chain Grill’d, upon the 20-year anniversary of his restaurant business.

“There’s nothing like a major anniversary to justify a comeback tour,” the narky piece began. “Through numerous industrial scandals over the past five years, Grill’d founder Simon Crowe has made himself notably scarce. But not any more.”

But by the third paragraph, the AFR had at least put its cards on the table – clearly the masthead was peeved that Crowe had given an exclusive newspaper interview to The Australian’s Damon Kitney, whom columnist Myriam Robin labelled “the confessor-of-choice of Australia’s entrepreneurs”.

Grill'd founder and CEO Simon Crowe.

It’s true, Kitney does have a knack for eking out plenty of raw truths from the big dogs of the Australian business world! But we digress.

In mocking Kitney’s scoop, Diary wonders whether the AFR should have disclosed a little titbit we picked up in our travels.

Word from our spies inside the AFR bunker is that one of its senior reporters had conducted an interview with Crowe the previous week, and was planning to run a story on the businessman on the Monday.

That was, up until the point when they saw Kitney’s story on The Australian’s website on Friday afternoon.

So, why didn’t the AFR’s planned piece on Crowe ever see the light of day?

Did one of the paper’s senior editors flip after reading The Australian’s scoop on Friday, and order that Crowe be served with a cheesed-off burger in the Rear Window column that appeared online late on Monday?

We can only wonder.

Nick Tabakoff is on leave