“The Seven Network makes the promos”

Media Watch last night mounted a hefty analysis of Murder in the Outback which screened on Seven, questioning allegations raised.

It also noted that former lawyer Andrew Fraser, and producer Victor Susman, had previously given similar interviews to Sunday Night in 2011 and The Project in 2017.

Amongst a list of questions, Media Watch asked producers for the “new evidence” teased by the promos.

CJZ replied “Seven makes the promos,” (which is entirely standard in such situations).

In a lengthy response to questions they claimed there was enough evidence to suggest doubt about key aspects of the case against killer Bradley Murdoch.

ABC also asked why the UK screening on Channel 4, which aired prior to Seven, also omitted claims by Vince Millar that 2 pages of his original statement went missing. UK broadcast regulator, OfCom did not allow the claim to be aired without seeing evidence.

CJZ replied, “Different versions of different series are often made for different territories, as they have to comply to different legal and regulatory frameworks. In the series, truck driver Vince Millar makes the claim that he saw a red car with some men in it just before he found Joanne Lees. In his interviews, he further claimed that he had made a statement about the car at the time, but said those pages later went missing. We were told by our UK broadcaster Channel4 that UK OfCom compliance procedures required that we provide copies of the missing pages. As we were unable to provide those pages Channel4 requested we not include that information in the series. Once the series aired in the UK, there was strong criticism of Vince. i.e why hadn’t he told anyone about the red car at the time? As we were still working on the Australian version of the series, we decided to include this part of the story. We felt we had a duty of care to contextualise Vince’s position and tell the missing piece of the story.

John Daulby, Assistant Commissioner, Northern Territory Police also told ABC the documentary’s claims were “outrageous to say the least.”

You can see the Media Watch report here and read statements by CJZ, Victor Susman and John Daulby.

14 Comments:

  1. to TV or not to TV

    “Media Watch last night mounted a hefty analysis”.

    Indeed. A healthy and correct analysis, I might add. As Paul Barry said in his piece, it’s shameful in the way that Ms Lees was portrayed.

    • Ms Lees contradictions of her own statements on more than one occasion deserves to be scrutinized. I don’t think she is involved in Peters murder/disappearance however.

  2. Maev....Sydney

    There’s what people want to hear, then there’s what people want to believe, there’s everything else, then there’s truth. – Author: James Rebhorn

  3. I was somewhat disappointed in Media Watch’s criticism of MITO. On reflection and after a second viewing of Vince Millars contribution, I don’t consider him or his claims to be genuine. However, I maintain there are many discrepancies in the evidence that went to trial, raising sufficient doubt. I’m frustrated with the standard line that Murdoch was convicted by a jury and the appeal process agreed with the jury. There are innocent people serving prison time around the World, and it is arrogant to assume that Australia is beyond such injustice.

  4. If new evidence had been found it should have been handed to the police,the fact it was not shows they were just on a media hype.Typical tv programming bs just for ratings.

  5. It would be great to see a spinoff of mediawatch focused on reality shows and their promos. My biggest peeve is when a promo clearly advertises an event happening on a Sunday episode, then it doesn’t happen until Wednesday. ten does it with Survivor all the time.

    • Yes I am as shocked as you. So the advertising resulted in more viewers and didn’t deliver ‘new evidence.’ In other sectors this would be ‘false advertising’

      • Yep, “Lorna Jane fined $40,000 over claims activewear is effective against coronavirus” (ABC). Yet networks can get away with saying and claiming anything.

        • … it’s what happens when you let “marketing” people loose … the ABC drama “Stateless” was first touted back in 2015 as “based on” Cornelia Rau … then as the fictional script developed it was modified to “loosely based” … then (no doubt after the lawyers had a look) the actual promos (and pre-show disclaimer) read “inspired by” … but that didn’t stop ABC News from running a story on the weekend it premiered headlined “Cornelia Rau, Australia’s immigration wars and the true story behind TV drama Stateless” using pictures from the series to illustrate the story, suggesting that the series was indeed “based on” the Rau story rather than a fiction “inspired by” it … can’t keep a good marketing person down theses days!!!

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.