Negus Fail on Animal Cruelty

During Monday night's channel 10 news, George Negus told us what stories were coming up on his 6.30 program. He said he had a horrifying story of animal cruelty - perhaps worse than the recent Four Corners investigation into live cattle exports. You know the one? That amazing and detailed piece of long-form journalism from Sarah Ferguson that resulted in a massive outcry from the public and temporary live export ban.

I don't usually watch 6.30 with George Negus, but I stayed tuned to see the promised story as it's a topic close to my heart. In the intro to the program George mentioned the animal cruelty story and called it a 'special investigation'. He then mentioned at least two other stories that would be on the program that evening. 

The half hour program. 

At least two other stories. 

So, this 'expose', 'special investigation', 'bigger than Four Corners' story was so very important that it was sharing a half hour with commercial breaks, Bear Grylls, and David Beckham. 

The story was actually around four and a half minutes. Viewers were warned at the beginning that what they were about to see was very disturbing and may upset some people. 

Over the next few minutes was an 'investigation' into dog pelts from China being used in fur clothes exported to Australia. Verna Simpson from the Humane Society featured heavily. In fact, she was really the only person in the story besides the reporter, Natasha Exelbey. There was a very short section of video footage of dogs in dirty, cramped conditions, one being held by a man with a knife. What the man did with that knife we do not know because the screen went black and remained so for a moment while the dog yelped in pain. It wasn't actually clear that the dog was being skinned alive - something a simple voice over could have explained. Skinning animals alive is not uncommon - though strongly denied by fur farmers. The rest of the story was Simpson and Exelbey examining items of clothing and declaring that shock! horror! gasp! - some of the fur products right here in Australia are DOG fur, when they are clearly labelled otherwise. 

I have several issues with this story. First of all, if the producers really thought the story was so important they would have given it more than a few minutes. If they really wanted it to have an effect on viewers, they would have actually shown some of the confronting footage. 

Secondly, the footage used was from as far back as 2009, the investigations referred to as old as 2003. Third, even comparing a pissy little few minutes of badly cut footage to the amazing research journalism of Sarah Ferguson and the bravery of animal activist Lyn White is insulting, to say the least. 

And here's the thing that really annoyed me; It's only shocking because they are dogs. No mention of the fact that millions of foxes, raccoons, rabbits, wolves and other beautiful animals are tortured every day to produce products that are readily available in Australia. Oh hang on, there was mention of foxes and rabbits - when the women were discussing what the dog fur was mixed with in the 'dodgy' clothes; "rabbit or fox - which is perfectly legal". Because it's okay to torture and kill those animals. We don't usually have them as pets. We can't relate. They're foreign like those nasty foreigners killing the pretty doggies. 

There's a scene in the documentary film Earthlings that stuck with me for days after watching it. It was the image of two beautiful little raccoons in a very small cage, huddled, shivering, wide-eyed, frightened. Holding onto each other, they stared, almost mesmerised, at their third companion lying dead in the cage next to them - whom they had been forced to cannibalise.

Animals in fur farms are starved you see - because loose skin is easier to remove. Delightful isn't it?

Tuesday's story on 6.30 with George Negus might as well have been on Today Tonight it was so lacking in any journalistic credibility. It boiled down to "Look at this! Look at this! Your shoes are made from DOG! Not some lesser animal that we don't give a shit about!" It reeked of desperation to ride on the coat-tails of the amazing response from the public in the wake of the Four Corners story. 

And the thing is, the horrors of the fur trade are enough. Show any fur farm. I mean, if you're going to use two year old footage, why not show Australia that terrified little raccoon? Why not show Australia where their expensive jackets and shawls come from? Why not give some statistics on just how many animals are killed so that some bourgeois woman's skinny shoulders can be draped in an expensive corpse as she waltzes down Chapel Street like the ignorant moron she is? 

I never watch 6.30 with George Negus, and I won't do it again.

EDIT 06.10.11

Well that was a blatant lie because I watched the 'follow up' story last night. I just can't help myself can I?

It was the same crap - a few minutes of 'expert' opinion on whether or not the fur was dog. Negus said in the intro that they had received a 'huge' response from viewers after Monday's story. Might have dedicated some more time to it and reported the broader issues then.

Double fail. 

There's an online petition over here. By the look of the comments and tweets on the topic - people overseas seem to think the dogs are being tortured in Australia, by an Australian company, under the approval of the Australian government.

Triple fail.


Don't get me wrong - it's great that the issue is gaining a wider audience. It would be even better if a reputable reporter/program did a story on the fur trade in general and wasn't afraid to show it for what it is. 

For the Love of 3D

Australia's gone mad for 3D. Since James Cameron's Avatar has broken all manner of box office records across the country there has been a renewed interest in all things Third Dimension.

Both A Current Affair and Today Tonight have had stories about the supposed rush to buy 3D televisions for the home and cinemas are hurrying to get whatever films they can in 3D so they can show movie-marathons and ride the wave of 3D popularity.

Talkin' 'Bout Your Generation on channel 10 returns this Sunday with some special segments in - you guessed it - 3D. (You can get your 3D glasses from TV Week or Women's Day magazines this week.)

Is it just me, or is 3D a little bit crap? I went to see Avatar at Imax and was thoroughly underwhelmed. Granted, after the hype surrounding the film I probably wouldn't have been happy with anything less than a Daft Punk-esque laser show requiring a cornea implant and resulting in a near-death-experience-so-close-to-heaven type revelation of existential proportions.

After three hours of checking my watch and wondering what species had bred with Jar Jar Binks to make these not-even-remotely believable creatures, I left the theatre wondering how this film had created such a buzz.

I suppose I should point out that I had watched Back to the Future II the night before - so I really had very high expectations of these new, fandangled 3D shenanigans. I mean, we've been promised 3D for a LONG time now haven't we? I mean, 3D films have been around since the start of the 20th century.

When chatting to a friend of mine about going to see Avatar he explained to me that the glasses provided by the cinema would probably be scratched from overuse and that he was going to be taking his own pair that he had saved from a 1976 Mad magazine.

Basically my reaction to the film, and particularly the 3D technologies was disappointment. Is this how far we've come with 3D? Is this as good as it gets right now? 

Buying a $7000 3D television set seems like a high price to pay to see some sparkly bits of stuff in front of your face every now and then - you can just as easily bang your head on the wall and get a similar effect. 

3D? As far as I'm concerned we have failed as a human race. 

- And where's my f#cking Hoverboard?

A Sad Affair

Whilst I'm sure everyone is sick of hearing about Kyle Sandilands and the 2DayFM lie-detector stunt, I just saw (on the late channel 9 news) a 'story' about the so-called family of the young girl at the centre of the scandal featuring on A Current Affair and basically 'outing' the girl as a liar.

So I went to the ACA website and saw the video of the story - which I decided not to embed here because it is ludicrous and wrong in so many ways. Basically the girls bogan aunts and cousin (who all have fake names and their images distorted) call the 14-year-old girl a tramp and a liar. They insist that any sexual activities the girl has been involved in have been consensual. ACA then showed footage from the channel 9 program Missing Persons Unit which featured the girl and her mother (previous to the radio incident) when the girl had run away.

I have to ask ... What the hell is ACA doing? Last week when the story broke that the girl had chosen to withdraw her complaint to police I wondered; 'why do we need to know this?' and 'how is this in the public interest?' - but this ACA story takes the cake.

From what I can tell it seems ACA is wanting to clear Sandilands of any wrongdoing by trying to put the blame not only on the mother but on the (may I repeat) FOURTEEN YEAR OLD CHILD.

Here's the thing channel 9 - it doesn't matter if, how, with whom or under what circumstances the girl had sexual relations - Austereo and the producers and announcers of the 2DayFM breakfast program ARE TO BLAME for the innapropriate use of a child in an on-air stunt.

The public does not and never did need to know anything about this girl - so why is her privacy continually being breached?

It's difficult for me to be shocked by current affairs programs, but considering even Today Tonight chose to feign disguist at ACA's story - surely that indicates that it's out of line.

2Day FM - what price?

The Kyle and Jackie O breakfast show this morning hooked a 14-year-old girl up to a lie detector test and let her mother ask her questions about school, drugs and sex. The girl admitted on air (in some of the most excruciating radio ever heard) that she had been raped at the age of 12. Whilst Kyle's idiotic response was "Right ... And is that the only experience you have had?", Jackie O did try to save face with the offer of counseling and by quickly pulling the plug on the segment.

The segment can be heard here (without names).

Commercial radio is well known for its 'do anything, try anything' approach to win the ratings - Judith Lucy wrote an excellent article a few years ago for The Age about her short stint on Today FM in Sydney and the ludicrous ideas thrown around for competitions and segments;

The idea was 'celebrity sperm' and the concept was that you would get a celebrity to donate their sperm (the example they used was Guy Sebastian, because we all know how much self-proclaimed virgins like chucking their semen around), and the woman who won the competition would get to impregnate herself. I am not making this up.

The thing is, this child is not being properly cared for by her parent/guardian. Her mother stated on air that the girl had not received counseling and that the mother herself only became aware of the 'incident' a few months ago - this also insinuates that the alleged rape had not been reported and that there has so far been no follow up.

What kind of mother signs a disclaimer to hook her daughter up to a lie detector and talk about sex and drugs on the radio? What kind of radio station pays money - and surely there was money involved - to a woman of clearly low intelligence who has an obvious dysfunctional relationship with her child to basically fight with her daughter on air?

It all comes down to the issue of popular culture and the lower classes. The only people (besides self-obsessed egomaniacs) willing to lose their dignity on television or radio are low income earners or people who can't fully understand the consequences of their actions. Look at Big Brother - the house was basically full of bogans and half-wits, the people we see on Today Tonight and A Current Affair are always from low socio-economic areas - and therefore more willing to 'sell their story' for a quick buck.

So here we have a bogan mother selling her 14-year-old daughter to a commercial station to be humiliated on the airwaves. Do we expect much more?

The station (including Kyle and Jackie O) is at fault - under no circumstances should a minor have been put on air to talk about participating in illegal behaviour (drugs and underage drinking/sex). The mother is a complete f#cking idiot - but ultimately the fault lies with the station who should know better.

On the issue of the alleged rape and the child not being properly cared for - DOCS can figure that one out.


* Thanks to Jess McGuire at Defamer for a great post about the incident.

Stupid Person Poll

Last week's Chaser's War on Everything ended with the web poll question;

Who's the most idiotic person channel 9 has ever paid money to?
a) backpacker jamie neale
b) richard wilkins
c) sam newman
d) eddie mcguire
e) karl stefanovic ... etc, etc, all the way to x,y and z.

However there was an omission on the list of Chk-Chk-Boom-Bogan, Claire Werbeloff who channel 9 has not only paid before but is set to put on the pay-role again as the host of a show called "Scammers".

It sounds like your basic A Current Affair, Today Tonight brand of shite where so-called "scams" are uncovered for the benefit of those unfortunates in society who think taking out a double mortgage on the house and transferring their life savings to a Nigerian bank account is a good idea.

Again, channel 9 deserves a pat on the back for helping the intellectually disabled - and putting them on the pay-role.

Blind Talent

Reality program Dancing with the Stars started this evening on channel 7 with its supposed "world exclusive" of a blind contestant.

The incessant publicity relating to contestant Gerrard Gosens' disability has been mildly offensive to me, let alone people who actually live with disabilities and try to lead normal lives without people gawking and patronising. The fact that host Daniel MacPherson made reference to the upcoming performance before every ad break wasn't nearly as cringe-worthy as the fact that they got some kid from Australia's Got Talent (cross promotion anyone?) to sing "You Raise me Up" before the paralympians dance routine as the show finale.

Hello? Anyone seen Scent of a Woman? or how about the classic 1986 made-for-tv-movie Can You Feel Me Dancing? starring Justine Bateman? I don't know much about Gerrard Gosens, but if he's an amazing person it's in spite of his disability - not because of it - which is what the show seems to be using as a publicity booster.

Not that I was expecting anything classy from this abomination-of-all-things-holy of a program. I can only really comment on what I saw between channel flicking - which was Today Tonight host Matt White (cross promotion anyone?) leering at his partner in a way that only a 17 year old virgin let into a Playboy mansion orgy could do - before grabbing her breasts and trying to break her back over his knee ... twice. I didn't think I could hate Matt White any more than I did before tonight but his (high rating might I add) performance made me cross my legs and want to scrub myself with Solvol soap until my skin was gone.

The only other performance I saw was swimsuit model (ie. men's magazine model) Emily Scott. The producers must really be clutching at straws for celebs when they're flicking through porn magazines and thinking "I wonder if this woman will do anything for media exposure?" ... answer; yes. I don't know how they didn't think of it sooner - if anyone is willing to make themselves look like an idiot for a quick buck it's the 'adult magazine' model. Next year they could get sponsorship from Picture magazine and call the show "Dancing with the Home Girls".

Let's see - what else was there? Oh yes, judge Mark Wilson's hairpiece - surely the costume department could have spent all the money saved on making the female costumes entirely of just string and sequins into getting a better stuffed animal to cover his receeding hairline?

Did I mention I hated the show? I won't be wasting another second on it.

CHANNEL NINE movers and shakers

Word has it that Tracy Grimshaw will be moving on up to the channel 9 elite club that is 60 Minutes after her supposed 'hard hitting' interview with Matthew Johns. I found it interesting that Nicole Brady in the Green Guide today lauded Grimshaw and suggested that she single-handedly gave the channel 9 news and current affairs division "a much needed shot in the arm".

She may have asked the 'tough' questions with Johns but as an interviewer Grimshaw's holier-than-though attitude and botox-affected emotionless face make it very difficult for her to be taken seriously in any circumstance.

And really, isn't the sign of a good interview ultimately getting the interviewee to reveal something unexpected of themselves? John's performance last week could be likened to the infamous Wayne Carey interview on Denton - in that both Johns and Carey said nothing more than what their advisors had recommended they say and displayed just the right amount of crocodile tears and 'respectful regret'.

Also, Karl Stephanovic, after his hung-over antics on Today, will supposedly be hosting A Current Affair. Rather than injuring his career the boozy post-logies rants have given him a leg-up.

The Herald Sun website suggests that Nine execs aren't happy with the imbalance of power due to Lisa Wilkinson being the dominant character of the two - god forbid that a woman have the spotlight on a supposed-news program! They are pitting Karl against Today Tonight host Matthew White (the Herald Sun called it "Bloke on Bloke" but I doubt that would get clearance for 7pm).

So poor Lisa is looking to get a 'serious older man' as her co-host ... how old's Eddie McGuire these days?