0/5

“Media has got it wrong” says Briefcase couple

They weren't told a bushfire family was already building another home, but Rod & Mandy are happy with Nine's controversial new series.

The Briefcase - Episode One - Mandy and Rod McCracken-61

A couple who appear in Nine’s new Reality series The Briefcase have defended the show following its bad reviews, saying the media has got it wrong.

Kilmore parents Rod and Mandy McCracken say they are happy with their involvement in Nine’s “social experiment” despite not knowing full information about a second family, the Carters, from The Grampians.

But they remain champions of the controversial premise, which tests both families on a decision to keep $100,000 or share some or all of the cash.

“Up until The Briefcase turned up we thought something was going on. We didn’t know what it was. And we were very comfortable to go with that,” says Mandy McCracken, 42, whose limbs were amputated following a life-threatening attack of deadly streptococcal A bacteria.

“We knew something was up. We honestly thought we’d have the equivalent of Scott Cam come and renovate our bathroom or our garden. But we were guessing.”

“My first reaction was ‘Ok, who’s money is this and why is it in my house?’”

The McCrackens were sourced by producers who consulted with local communities for a secret documentary project under the working title “Making Ends Meet.” Backstories were filmed for 2 days with a Nine crew.

“We got a phone call from Channel Nine in November saying they were doing a documentary about people who have been through tough times and how they dealt with that financially. We were very open to telling our story in the first place because we believed the more this stuff gets talked about, the better it is for the public to deal with it when they have their version. So we were quite prepared to do our ‘warts and all’ version and let everybody have a look at what life is like when you have a major illness.”

Cameras were on hand when a briefcase with $100,000 also landed on their doorstep.

“My first reaction was ‘Ok, who’s money is this and why is it in my house?’” she recalls.

“We had no idea there was also an Armaguard truck hiding down the road behind the bushes.”

In order to capture the ‘big reveal’ the couple also repeated the moment they opened the briefcase for cameras.

“I think you have to appreciate that if you are going to film a show like this, sometimes the first reaction isn’t actually the best edit. We went through the full scenario and then they did close up shots and cutaways. We haven’t seen the final edit,” explains Rod.

“I didn’t feel like we were prying or getting into anyone’s business”

As the scenario shifted from Documentary to Reality premise, along with it came the question: would they keep the money or give some or all of it away to another family, the Carters, whose farm had been ravaged by bushfires?

Over three days they would learn more about the Carters, including visiting their farm in the Carters’ absence (while the Carters visited their home), looking at family photos, newspaper clippings and even family bills.

“I didn’t feel like we were prying or getting into anyone’s business,” says Rod.

“To go into their lives and to see the farm gave the experience a deep poignancy. You feel like you’re connecting with the people you’re aiming to help. It’s like being on a soup van or handing out blankets on Smith Street.”

“We walked into their lives, they walked into ours. It was all done very respectfully. The people at Channel Nine were very respectful walking into each others’ houses,” adds Mandy.

The Briefcase - Episode One - Jim and Jenny Carter-72

But while learning the Carters (pictured above) had lost their farmhouse, livestock and had property ravaged, the McCrackens were unaware a new house was already being built with the proceeds of home insurance.

“We didn’t know that the Carters had already started building their house. But we would have come to the same conclusion, anyway,” Mandy assures.

“But the broader answer is you can never really know a person’s full situation,” Rod explains.

“I genuinely believed we were given all of the information, because we had to give all of our information over.”

Both families have since become good friends as a result of their TV experience.

“It’s not about poor vs poor”

Reviews for the show have not been kind, questioning the premise of two families being tested on their choices and generosity, with $100,000 on the line. But the McCrackens are convinced the media are missing the point and question whether negative press is playing into Nine’s hands.

“Channel Nine have been more than happy to have the sensationalist stuff going around because they will get more viewers,” Rod suggests. “But I genuinely believe most of the media is getting wrong. We are not needy. We are very happy and we don’t seek anything other than for people to think.

“The media are missing the point of the show.”

“It’s not about poor vs poor. It’s about what do you do in a situation you weren’t expecting,” adds Mandy.

“I’m very aware that word ‘Greed’ is being thrown around. I think that needs to be changed to ‘Need.’

“We have to be very careful that a family (may) genuinely need this change in their life and we as a community should be very accepting of them to take the cash for themselves. I don’t know the outcomes of the other families, but if somebody decides they really do need this money to make a difference to their lives then we shouldn’t judge them.”

In rejecting ‘poverty porn’ claims, the McCrackens say the show raises wider questions about generosity, both individual and community.

“It’s the perfect time to be talking about the guy in Lebanon, Indigenous rights, same sex marriage. The show is a metaphor for the human condition and the way we need to be treating other people. It’s not about $100,000.

“It’s just not.”

The Briefcase airs 7:30pm Monday on Nine.

21 Responses

  1. I just watched the first 10 minutes of this and Nein are saying the property belonging to the farming family was not insured in the bushfires. But here in this article we have proof their new house is being built from proceeds of their home insurance. What a rubbish program

  2. I respect their views, and appreciate David’s acknowledgement of a ‘right of reply’ considering the review (which I did read). I will not be giving the show even a first chance though, and the few of my mates who have heard of it have expressed utter disinterest so I hope the show disappears without trace quickly.

  3. Oh great the producers told a lie and said they were making a documentary about something else ? They lied ? Great that’s gonna really help out all the other ‘real’ documentary makers, thanks a lot channel 9 !

  4. Thank you David Knox…good story…..plainly the contestant are not upset or put out….so just up to viewers if they watch or not…
    Again TVT in not afraid to put forward all points and opinions….this is why it is such a good blog.

  5. This show and the upcoming federal election will prove to the Chinese that we’re a stupid country ripe for invasion. Great work Channel Nine.

  6. So the producers exploited communities by lying about the real purpose of their background research, misrepresented themselves to contestants by pretending to be a documentary, destabilised their lives by pulling out a big wodge of money with strings attached, coached them on how to fake the correct reaction when their genuine reaction wasn’t good enough for TV, presented them with a false dilemma, withheld important information in order to manipulate their emotions and influence the decision-making process – and all to make a TV show which in its previous incarnation was called “cynical and repulsive”, “the worst reality TV show ever”, and failed to make it past a single series.

    In the immortal words of Homer Simpson, the only correct answer can be: “I don’t need your phony-baloney job! Sure, I’ll take your money – but I’m not gonna plow your driveway!”

    1. Except the people involved have a completely different opinion of their involvement and yet you refuse to listen to them? Did you even read the article or do you think they’re being paid by 9 now to promote the show? They seem like sincere people to me so how do you explain their attitude?

      1. Please, give me some credit – I read the article, listened to what they said, and came to a totally different opinion based on the information given.

        “Producers who consulted with local communities for a secret documentary project” = lied about their purpose; “We got a phone call … saying they were doing a documentary” = misrepresented themselves; “In order to capture the ‘big reveal’ the couple also repeated the moment they opened the briefcase for cameras” = faked reaction; etc, etc (900 chars not enough).

        Just because the couple are OK with it doesn’t make Nine’s behaviour for ratings and profit any less reprehensible, at least in my opinion (which is all your comment or their explanation can be too). Now I might be an outlier – I’ve always loathed Candid Camera shows for much the same reason – but many other comments here suggest I’m not totally alone…

  7. I was unaware anyone in the media was talking about ‘greed’, that seems a strange word to apply to people in desperate circumstances. I thought the criticism of the show was directed at the premise of of two different families having to decide whether to relinquish some of their money to the other by emotionally manipulating them. It comes across as ‘pranking’ the families and sounds abhorrent.

    1. Same here altho’ I tend to avoid the parts of “the media” that might be bandying about “greed” in this case. I have no issue with the participants, even if either family decided to keep all of the money for themselves (ie were “greedy”). It’s the show and the way that is was presented and run that stinks.

      1. Yes that’s true, I might have missed that section of the media. And I agree, the families are completely innocent in all this and if one had decided to keep all the money I wouldn’t blame them, their circumstances are dire and they were put into awful positions.

  8. Nope. Will not be watching it. Sorry, but I just don’t agree with such an awful premise, particularly when participants didn’t know what they were signing up for. I’m not a snob, I’ll watch Bachelor and MKR – those people know what they are signing up for from the word go. These people were brought into it under false pretences. This, even if this couple are now trying to “sell it” in a positive light, does not sit right with me.

Leave a Reply