★★★★★ 0/5

Liz Hayes: judging siege survivors is wrong

Ratings war prompts Liz Hayes to give a rare interview, in defence of Lindt cafe siege survivors.

27
Leave a comment

2015-02-07_0045How do we know the TV war is starting? Liz Hayes has given an interview. The 60 Minutes veteran is normally reluctant to give interviews, despite conducting them weekly for Nine (I know, I’ve been turned down).

But the ratings war is at full steam and 60 Minutes is up against Seven’s interview with Lindt cafe siege survivors.

So Hayes has hit back at Jeff Kennett and Rev. Fred Nile over comments they have made about the survivors, ahead of tomorrow’s broadcast.

Kennett recently criticised payment to victims for telling their survival stories to media while Nile questioned whether the men escaping from the siege were “real men” for not protecting women.

Hayes tells News Corp., “…I’ll tell you, what’s wrong is the judgement by others, the judgement by Fred Nile, the judgement by Jeff Kennett. The pressure and the guilt they’ve added to these people is just dreadful.

“One of them said to me: ‘I’ve been called grubby and a coward’. Why would anyone do that to these people — I don’t get it?’’

Both Nine and Seven air their respective specials head to head tomorrow night at 6:30pm.

27 Responses

  1. Oh just give it a rest….these people spent 18 hours expecting every one would be their last….no one knows what they would do …unless they were there…and then is was minute by minute…there was no planning…just blind panic….
    They want and need to talk…people quite obviously want to know…totally up to them…and of course they should be paid…You would expect it also I suspect.
    Walk a mile in their shoes.

  2. I won’t be watching .. I can just imagine it now, interviewer/s wearing their best sympathetic faces and soft voices.. interviewees in tears .. and it will just drag on and on (interspersed with a million ads of course).

    I just find the whole thing so tacky, and so typical of both programs. No class.

    I think I’ll stick with David Attenborough.

  3. its like both networks are saying to us viewers, hey pick a channel and whose story to you want to hear the most about these people that got caught up in a horrific siege situation.

    ch7 offer you actual real footage because they had the camera rolling while 9 will get an actor to re enact that day for you.

  4. I saw a promo for the 60 minutes interviews and some of the teenage hostages were unhappy that they were left by the actions of the escaped hostages after the gunman said he would kill the remaining hostages if anyone escaped. Seems as though one group of hostages are critical with the other.

  7. I’ll watch as it was the biggest news story of 2014, how anyone can have a go at the survivors is beyond me especially about the people who escaped, I would have run to save myself…

  8. i agree the hostages should get something out of this. Their lives are forever changed by an event that was completely out of their control, none of them asked to be put in that situation. They didn’t leave home that day thinking ‘i hope something horrible happens to me so i can get a paid interview on tv’.

    These people will most likely have ptsd & may not be able to work at their normal capacity or at all because of it. So if any govt compensation is small like people have said (idk), then they will need the money to live on & pay for really good mental health care.

  9. Over the many years networks have given millions of dollars to convicted criminals to share their stories on screen, most of them tell lies or aren’t even able to fully answer questions and we watch them.

    These hostages have real stories and now to have to face all sorts problems just so they can have a normal life again. So I really don’t see the problem with networks giving them a lot of money. They don’t even have to give it charity either just a few people tell them its the ‘right’ thing to do. People need to stop telling other people what to do with their money.

  10. @jezza – im not sure that the interviews could be shown in any other way than a “lousy crappy ratings grab way”. The interviews are going to rate even if they are shown at 1am on SBS2, people will still watch. Like I said in my original comment the hostages could have done the interviews for free….. but they haven’t…. Id still like to judge the shows once they have aired. I think it is very unfair to everyone in the TV industry, to say that the shows are going to be grubby and grab for ratings and blah blah blah…. for some people they believe that everything important has to be on the ABC….. I don’t agree with this. Ive seem some quiet powerful stories on 60mins and the fact that the hostages have been paid does not mean a thing to me. I want to hear their story and what happened in there that day.

    As for Nile’s comments…… I don’t listen to a thing he lets fall out…

  11. The fact that the hostage shows will rate their pants off is because the vast majority don’t care what was paid. They just want to see the real people tell their real stories and I am one of them.

    So they were paid. Who does it hurt?

  12. What’s grubby is the networks throwing the cheque book at the hostages. It is far too soon for these interviews to be appearing. Unfortunately they will be huge ratings pullers which just encourages the networks.

  13. While I doubt I’ll be watching either 7 or 9’s interviews, I don’t begrudge the victims getting paid for talking about their horrific ordeal. If anyone should be making donations to charity it should be Seven or Nine, who are the ones cashing in on this tragedy for a ratings grab and using it as a springboard for the first survey night of the year. I find that more offensive than the victims getting some compensation for their stories.

  14. @ Poit, Nathan and JM

    I dont’t agree with aspects of your comments

    Kennett & Nile are not grubs or cowards, I think they fired off at the wrong people. The gunman was the only coward in this story

    I too, am interested in the hostages story but not in this lousy crappy ratings grab way.
    The environment that is created by the way ch7 and ch9 operate is tawdry and occupies a moral cess pool. It is possible to be interested in this story, but hope it is carried out in a more dignified less commercial way

  15. Oh my. IACGMOOH is gonna be crushed tomorrow night.

    Up against not one but two Sydney siege interviews.

    Which one will rate 2m and which will rate 1m?

    IACGMOOH will be lucky to rate 300K tomorrow night.

    I’m enjoying the show but whoever is in charge of programming at Ten is a fool.

  16. I can’t see any grubbiness here at all. These poor folk should get anything positive that they can from this experience – who could deny them that? The public (including me) are also curious to know what really happened. Some people sure love their moral high-horse, don’t they…

  17. Don’t agree with the interviews but Hayes makes a damn good point about the survivors, people like Nile and Kennett should stay out of it all, calling the survivors grubs and cowards doesn’t help. The only grubs and coward are people like Nile and Kennett.

  18. The hostages experience in the cafe is not being critised but the prospect of them profiting off a tragic event that costs two lives is being questioned and rightly so. The TV networks share part of the blame but ultimately it the survivors and their agents who negotiate the obscene amounts of money for these deals.

  19. Im not judging or blaming anyone here. You can criticise the hostages and also the networks. The hostages could always do the interviews for free. But then I kind of also want them to get something for it. I don’t see why it should be donated to charity. They will receive tiny payouts from the government for their pain and suffering on the day. And the networks have to try and get viewers and will do it any way they can, as would any business. They have to get the chequebook out or the opposition will just do the same thing.
    I don’t really think it is fair the judge the programs when they haven’t even aired yet. I’m assuming they will both be very careful and tasteful with their stories. Judge them on Monday….. Not the Saturday before

  22. Here here Jezza tfoo. How she can defend the indefensible is beyond me. The ads with these victims traumatised overplayed by emotive pop songs is poor in the extreme. I don’t think I’ve ever been more disgusted, but maybe I have.
    It will rate its pants off and as more of this happens these networks will be there with their chequebooks.
    Theses are easy stories, it beats actually doing journalism to uncover truths.

  23. i think what is grubby is when i read the paper yesterday to see that ch9 have turned to an actor to play the gunman and re enact what happened.

    Obviously ch7 have an advantage because they had that camera rolling all day set up on the higher level of there offices so at least they have real footage and the unseen stuff they will show be actually real.

    I just hope the next day neither network comes out and gloats on who won.

  24. What’s grubby is how TV networks are cashing in on this tragedy. Particularly since both major networks are using it to start the ratings year underlines the fact that they’re exploiting what’s happened. Yes, by all means interview the survivors, but it should be done as a public interest story. Also feel uncomfortable with the large sums paid to some interviewees with no mention of any of it going to charity.

  25. I don’t think the survivors are grubby, far from it they have had a terrible experience.

    What is grubby, is the situation where tv networks, notably ch7 and ch9 get the chequebooks out to secure interviews. It then gets far worse when promos are developed and the whole thing becomes a ratings grab

    ….and imo the people who create this environment and then justify it are the lowlifes

Leave a Reply