Nine’s 60 Minutes debacle: costly Beirut bungle a rookie error

Nine’s management created a public relations disaster but had no option than to pay to release its 60 Minutes crew.

photos supplied by channel 9 of the Sixty Minutes crew after arriving safely back from Lebanon. LtoR, David Ballment, Stephen Rice, Tara Brown and Ben Williamson.

Channel Nine’s rookie management has created a massive public relations disaster for the network but it had no option other than to pay for the release of its 60 Minutes crew in the Beirut kidnapping drama.

Clearly, the Australian public is aghast at the misadventures of Nine. The social media commentary is exultant in its condemnation of a program many people, including me, would have judged to hold the respect of the public.

The news that at least half a million dollars — and perhaps much more — was paid for the release of the crew has been met with derision.

But Nine had no choice. What were its alternatives? It could not stand back and let one of its star reporters, Tara Brown, mother of two, rot in a Beirut jail indefinitely. It could not ignore the plight of producer Stephen Rice, cameraman Ben Williamson or sound man David Ballment, sharing a one-person cell.

Paying for release might have been a PR disaster. Not paying would have been much, much worse. And not paying would have inevitably led in due course to the incarcerated ones and their families suing Nine for failing in their duty of care to employees. As it is, Nine will probably have to quietly stump up more in “bonuses” to the team to make all the pain go away.

It could be argued that Nine had plenty of options at the start of this saga. For instance, it could have chosen to not send the team to Beirut in the first place. It could have chosen to not pay for exclusive rights to the story of Brisbane mother Sally Faulkner as she tried to bring her children home to Australia where she had court-­approved legal custody. Perhaps Faulkner has not pocketed a penny personally from all this, but without Nine’s involvement, the operation would not have happened. Nine could have chosen not to fund the child recovery team, or kidnappers — take your pick of term — to the tune of $120,000 and the whole problem would not have arisen.

All that is true. Those options were available. But they were also unrealistic in the world in which Nine must compete.

The public may have a loud distaste for chequebook journalism but it is a fact of life and will ­remain so. This is especially the case in television, where the stakes are higher and the pressures are greater to translate ratings into revenue. In this cutthroat world, journalistic ethics and public taste rank lower than a ratings blockbuster.

It is simply wishful thinking to suggest there should be an end to payment for stories on TV programs such as 60 Minutes, Sunday Night or A Current Affair. The next time a pair of miners are freed after being trapped underground for weeks the public will clamour for details and flock to the TV sets to watch their stories. The next time a bloke survives on Everest courtesy a couple of chocolate bars, the nation will be transfixed and will expect to hear the details.

People will forever have stories to tell and that means the best will be “sell and tell”.

Gerald Stone, the founding executive producer of 60 Minutes in Australia and David Hurley, a former ACA executive producer and corporate spin-doctor for Nine, together with lawyer Rachel Launders, will conduct a forensic review of what went wrong in ­Beirut. They will be asking: “Who stuffed up?” and “What systems should be put in place in the future to prevent a recurrence?”

The make-up of the review team sends strong signals — Stone and Hurley are old foxes who know their way around the hen house and Nine’s motivation in appointing them is clearly ­designed to provide a face-saving report that ultimately doesn’t upset the apple cart too greatly.

They, along with Nine’s executive and other level-headed media operatives will understand that Beirut was a legitimate story that became a bungled disaster. The latter does not extinguish the former.

Of course the story was legitimate. What’s not news about a young Australian mother of two, armed with a court order giving her custody of her children, seeking their return from their father in Lebanon after he allegedly breached an undertaking to send them home after a visit?

This kind of tug-of-love story has been told umpteen times with different faces and different places. It will always attract interest because in matters such as these, the public does want to know. Those who deny this fail to understand the basics of human nature — and the basics of human interest journalism.

In the context of the TV industry, or course Channel Nine was willing to pay for this story. I bet Channel Seven would have done the same if it thought the price reasonable.

TV current ­affairs is highly competitive and money is used for competitive ­advantage. No one can be surprised by that.

None of these journalistic/media business facts of life seem to impress the social media commentariat.

I am again staggered by the vindictive, almost celebratory nature of the condemnation of the journalistic profession, 60 Minutes, Nine and the entire media industry which dominate online feedback to the stories published by The Australian in the past week.

What comes through is exultant delight that someone in the media has got a black eye. It’s those who perceive their powerlessness striking back at the perceived powerful.

My defence here of the fundamentals behind Nine’s decisions doesn’t hide or minimise the fact that the Beirut episode has been a massive disaster for the network.

Stone and co will seek the ­details but broadly I believe the blame can be laid at the door of rookie management.

Chief executive Hugh Marks has been five months in his job; Tom Malone, who approved the Faulkner story in the first place has now moved on and 60 Minutes executive producer Kirsty Thomson took over only at the start of this year.

It is hard to imagine that the Beirut disaster would have happened under Nine’s old guard of former CEO David Leckie, news director Peter Meakin and 60 Minutes EP John Westacott.

[e-mail]